PA 442 
.E78 
Copy 1 




6^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Chap. 
Shelf 






' i 



\i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



•S 



T> 



Aristarchns Anti-Blomfieldianm : 

OR, 

A REPLY 

« t 

" ' * TO THE NOTICE OF 

THE NEW GREEK THESAURUS, 

INSERTED IN 

THE 44th NUMBER OF 

%ty <&uarterl£ &e\rieto* 

. BY 

E. H BARKER, O.T.N. 



rwrn ^iix^dus tyt y out vo cuQentT*. 

Aesch. Acam. 1434=1398. Blomf. 



; / 



PART THE FIRST. 



TO WHICH ARE ADDED 

THE JENA-REVIEWS OF MR. BLOMFIELD'S EDITION OF CALLI- 

MACHUS, AND AESCH YLI PERS.E. 

Translated from the German, 



JLonUon: 






PRINTED FOR J. H. BOHTE, YORK-STREET, CO VENT-GARDEN, 

AND SOLD BY SIMPKIN AND MARSHALL, STATIONERS' COURT ; AND 

THE PRINCIPAL BOOKSELLERS IN OXFORD, CAMBRIDGE, 

DUBLIN, LEIPSIG, PARIS, &C. 

1820. 



• E7S 



Printed by R. and A. Taylor, Shot-Lant t London. 



TO 



THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 



EARL SPENCER, K. G. 

THIS REPLY 

TO 
THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THE NEW GREEK THESAURUS 

IS, 

IN PROFOUND ADMIRATION OF 

HIS LORDSIlir'S MORAL AND LITERARY CHARACTER, 

DEDICATED 

BY 

HIS OBEDIENT HUMBLE SERVANT, 



EDMUND HENRY BARKER. 



PREFACE. 



J. he following Book derives its title, Aristarchus Anti- 
Blonifteldianus, from a celebrated work published by 
Richard Johnson, the Master of Nottingham School, in 
I717-8. called:— 

M Aristarchus Anti-Ben tleianus 

Quadraginta sex 

Bentleii Errores 

super 

Q. Horatii Flacci 

Odarum Libro primo spissos nonnullos, 

et erubescendos : 

Item per Notas universas in Latinitate 

Lapsus foedissimos Nonaginta ostendens." 

And before the reader has finished the perusal of it, he 
will in all probability be satisfied that, if he has to deal 
with a person of genius and erudition infinitely inferior 
in every respect to Dr. Bentley, he has to behold errours 
as gross and as numerous, as those pointed out by 
Richard Johnson, and he will find matter for deep reflec- 
tion in observing that the errours are not merely slips of 
the pen, but aberrations of the heart. 

The fact of the Quarterly Review of the New Greek 
Thesaurus having been written by the Rev. C. J. Blom- 
field is so notorious, and the internal evidence of his com- 
position, which the Review itself supplies, is so powerful, 
that it would be a mere waste of words to attempt a for- 
mal proof of it ; and it would be equally idle to shew 
that the Reviewer could only have had an improper mo- 
tive for writing the Review. He is the avowed personal 
enemy of the Editors of the New Greek Thesaurus, and 

could 



VI PREFACE. 

could not undertake the anonymous review of their work 
without the grossest violation of common decorum and 
without the strongest suspicions of private malignity, and 
yet he has the unparalleled effrontery, "the egregious and 
disgusting hypocrisy, to talk of " the impartiality of his 
criticism," (p. 348.)f 

But it is urged by the friends of Mr. Blomfield in vin- 
dication 



-f- With equal justice he has elsewhere talked of his own modesty and 
(proh Deum hominumque fidern !) his own polite and gentlemanly spirit." 
Such is the deceitfulness of the human heart ! 

" Occasione libelli retractandi oblata, morem libenter gessi viris doctis- 
simis, qui mihi errores, in priorem editionem per inscitiam aut incuriam 
admissos, indicarant. Hodie tamen video horum nonnullos, nescio quo casu, 
silentio praetermissos esse; quod ut nox tam arrog antia quam ne- 
gligentia factum esse arbitrentur, viros humanissimos impense rogo. 
Quippe censoris honesti animadversiones, ego, si quis alius, aequi bo- 
nique consulo, qui id semper in animo atqueore habeam, cujusvis hominis 
esse errare; v nullius, nisi insipientis, perseverare in errore. Quaedam ta- 
men objecta vidi, quae brevi responsione egeant, quum a consilio nostro 
minus intellecto profecta esse videantur. Noscant igitur lectores, me Co- 
dicum MSS. opem eo adhibuisse, non ut inde omnes literarum et apicum 
varietates exacte descriptas enotarem, sed eas tantum,quafc notatu digniores 
viderentur. Quare glossas manifestas, et apertos scribarum errores ple-r 
rumque tacendos duxi. Idem de priorum interpretum atque editorum 
hallucinationibus dicendum est, quas iterum in medium proferre, atque 
argumentis refellere, frivola esset atque inanis jactantia. Quod si hujus- 
modi errores bis terve mihi refutandos sumserim, id non quasi major 
IPSE REPRENSis feci, verum ne quis forte lectorum magni nominis au- 
ctoritate induceretur. Si quid De quoquam malebice uspiam aut 

CONTUMELIOSE DIXI, ID OMNE INDICTUM VELIM, INDICTUMQUE 

esto. Hoc enim in primis mihi providendum puto, dum veteribus ni- 
torem suum restituere conor, ut inter recentiores, imminutam esse a 
me dignitatem suam, nemo conqueri possit. Hujus laudis exempla sem- 
per mihi proposui Marklandum nostrum et Tvrwhittum, in quibus ne- 
scias utrum magis admirabile eluceat ingenii acumen, an pulcra humani- 
tatis cum eruditione conjunctio. Quapropter, ut egomet vineta c&- 
dam mea, pudet pigetque me in Glossario ad Prom. 248. Valckenaerium 
vocasse virum longe eruditissimum, sed qui in etymologia parum vidcbat. Quan- 
quam enim mihi persuasissimum sit, Hemsterh. Valck. Lennep. a vero 
aberrare, quum ad simplicissimas verborum formas, quas binis tribusve li- 
teris constent, omnia fere Graeciae vocabula referunt, verumtamen minime 
conveniebat tantum virum verbis gravioribus excipere, cujus quidem 
eruditionis decimam partem attingere nunquam speravi." 
Praef. ad Aeseh. Sept. c, Th. p. vii. 

' This 



PREFACE. Vll 

dication of his conduct, that he has received a sufficient 
provocation from the Editors of the New Greek The- 
saurus, because one of them has written articles against 
Mr. Blomfield's compositions, and the other has inserted 
them in the periodical work, of which he has the ma- 
nagement. Now to give any weight to this argument, 
Mr. Blomfield and the partisans of Mr. Blomfield must 
prove, and Mr. Barker challenges them to prove, that 

there 



This passage loudly calls for two or three remarks from the writer of 
the Reply. 

1. Mr. Blomfield indirectly admits, what indeed without his admission 
is palpable enough, his own arrogance : " Quod ut non tam arrogantia quam 
negligentia factum esse arbitrentur, viros humanissimos impense rogo." 
Then the omissions originated partly in his arrogance and partly in his 
negligence, and Mr. Barker would ask " the most partial admirer" (Re- 
viewer, p. 838.) of this holy-minded man whether this " confession " be 
not quite as " extraordinary," as the one made by the Editors of the New 
Gr. Thes. in which the Reviewer, p. 340. expatiates with such delight, — 
a delight, which will be somewhat disturbed, when that part of the Reply, 
which discusses this question, is published ? 

2. But, though he has in the sentence just dismissed, indirectly admitted 
his own arrogance in rejecting the notices of his errours as pointed out by 
different scholars, yet in the sentence which follows, he has falsely described 
himself to be one, who will candidly receive and gratefully employ the ob- 
servations of any fair critic — and one, who has always in his mind and in 
his mouth the admirable maxim that any man may err, but that none but 
a fool will persevere in his errour. That this maxim may be often in his 
mouth is, for aught Mr. Barker knows, true ; but certain it is that he, si 
quis alius, has violated it in practice. 

" 111 does it become this Editor, at his time of life, to make these attacks 
upon such men. One would have thought that discretion at least, if not 
the sense of decorum, would have put some guard upon his pen. And yet 
this is the man, who, in his preface to the Seven against Thebes, writes 
thus: — 'Hoc in primis mihi providendum puto, dum veteribus nitorem 
suum restituere conor, ut inter recentiores, imminutam esse a me digni- 
tatem suam, nemo conqueri possit : hujus laudis exempla semper mihi 
proposui Marklandum nostrum et Tyrwhittum, in quibus nescias utrum 
magis admirabile eluceat ingenii acumen, an pulcra humanitatis cum eru- 
ditione conjunctio/ Mr. Blomfield has clearly lost sight of his intention 
in his practice. What mercy can he expect to be shown to his errours and 
failings, when he is disposed to shew none to others ? He will be but justly 
treated, and therefore cannot complain, if, when scholars detect in his 
compositions the conjectures, which have been previously made by others, 
they should charge them to the account of plagiarism, and not to acciden- 
tal 



Vlll PREFACE. 

there is in the articles alluded to any thing, which affords 
any just ground of offence to Mr. Blomfield. Almost 
every article written by Mr. Barker on the compositions 
of Mr. Blomfield is signed with his name, and any article 
written by him, which is anonymous, Mr. Barker is both 
perfectly ready to avow, and perfectly prepared to defend 
against any such insinuations. Mr. Barker's offence, it 
should seem, lies not in having said so and so, but in 
having said any thing — Mr. Biomfield's majesty ought 
not to have been prophaned by so vulgar a touch. — Mr. 

tal coincidences. He will by these means be erecting his own scaffold. 
In the preface to the Seven against Thebes, when he is speaking of having 
corrected some errours in the second edition of the Prometheus, he adds :— - 
* Hodie tamen video horum nonnullos, nescio quo casu, silentio praeter- 
missos esse, quod ut non tarn arrogantia, quam negligentia factum esse 
arbitrentur, viros humanissimos impense rogo.' Does Mr. Blomfield then 
mean this as an apology for having, in his second edition, passed in total 
silence the strictures, which we published upon his first edition of the 
Prometheus, and having altogether neglected every thing, which Mr. 
Barker has written upon this Play in the Classical Journal and in the 
Classical Recreations ? We are inclined to think that this total neglect of 
those remarks proceeded non tarn negligentia, quam arrogantia. It would 
have cost his dignity too much to have noticed the compositions of au 
undergraduate younger than himself, and it was worthy of his policy to 
add the above apparent apology. The passages, which we have quoted, 
most incontestable* prove that he is not a little liable to that suspicion." 
lleview of the Museum Criticum No. 1., inserted in the Brit. Crit. for 
Nov. 1813. Let the reader consult the 7 1st page of this Reply, and he 
will there find Mr. Blomfield, in a private letter to Mr. Barker, speaking 
of the Classical Recreations in very high terms, and yet from either " ar- 
rogance" or " negligence," (and the reader knows which,) he has not in 
the second edition of his Prometheus taken the smallest notice of any 
thing contained in that book, 

3. While Mr. Blomfield is in the passage above cited rhodomontading 
about his own gentlemanly, candid, liberal, and modest spirit, he actually 
within the compass of a few lines furnishes his readers with a proof of his 
own consummate arrogance, and impertinence, and inflicts punishment on 
himself: — " Quapropter, ut egomet vineta ccedam mea, pudct pigetque me in 
Gloss, ad Prom. v. 248. Valckenaerium vocasse virum longe eruditissimutn, 
sed qui in etymologia parum videbat. Quanquam enim mini persuasissimum 
sit, Hemsterh. Valck. Lennepium a vero aberrare, quum ad simplicissimas 
verborum forrnas, quae binis tribusve literis constent, omnia fere GraeciaB 
vocabula referunt, verumtamen minime conveniebat tantum virum verbis 
gravioribus excipere, cujus quidem cruditionis decimam partem attingere 
nunquam speravi." 

Biomfield's 



PREFACE. IX 

Blomfield's age, which exceeds Mr. Barker's by two or 
three years at the utmost, ought not to have been vio- 
lated by Mr. Barker's presumption in calling into ques^ 
tion Mr. Blomfield's high " decrees." But Mr. Barker 
has not sworn the same blind allegiance to Mr. Blom- 
field's resolves, which the latter has sworn to Porson's 
dicta, (see p. 46.) and Mr. Barker has as great a right to 
publish any strictures on Mr. Blomfield's compositions, 
as Mr. Blomfield has to publish those compositions 
themselves, and Mr. Barker's motives in publishing the 
strictures on them may be and are quite as honourable 
and just in themselves, as the motives, by which Mr. 
Blomfield is actuated in publishing the compositions 
themselves. Mr. Barker's object was and is to advance 
his own reputation and to promote the cause of Greek 
literature, and what other ends does Mr. Blomfield pro- 
pose to himself? Mr. Blomfield and his friends take for 
granted that Mr. Barker had a malicious motive for writ- 
ing those strictures. But he disclaims any such motive, 
does not and cannot ever repent of any thing, which he 
has published respecting Mr. Blomfield, and he again 
calls on Mr. Blomfield to support his accusations by the 
proper proofs, and till he has done so, he must take the 
liberty of calling him a calumniator. 

But, while Mr. Blomfield cannot support such an ac- 
cusation against Mr. Barker, the latter has proofs, and 
proofs as strong as Holy Writ, that Mr. Blomfield has, in 
his conduct towards Mr. Barker, been governed by the 
foulest malice. Mr. Blomfield has in his compositions 
uniformly avoided every favourable mention of Mr. Bar- 
ker's name, even in cases where common justice f, com- 

f " It must always be unpleasant to the candid critic, to detect instances 
of literary dishonesty, and to detract from long-established, and, in many 
respects, well-earned fame. But justice, whose laws should be as strictly ob- 
served in cases of literary , (is of personal property, requires that it should be 
done. A charge of plagiarism, however, is not to be considered as esta- 
blished, unless a very strong case is made out : and in questions like the 
present, we may be permitted to say, that not many persons are qualified 
to judo-e." Edinburgh Review of the Cambridge Aeschylus,, No. 33. p. 495. 

mon 



X PREFACE. 

mon decency, and common sense required the introduc- 
tion of it, and he has as uniformly, but anonymously intro- 
duced it into any articles, which by a certain dexterous 
management afforded to him an opportunity of stabbing 
Mr. Barker's reputation, without having any nice regard 
to candour, truth, and justice. The Reply here presented 
to the reader affords the clearest evidence of this fact. 
Now, so far is Mr. Barker from being actuated by any 
malicious motives, that he has in very many instances 
given high commendation to Mr. Blomfield's opinions, and 
in Mr. Blomfield's own gentlemanly language " defies " 
him to point out any instance, where he has wilfully sup- 
pressed the mention of Mr. Blomfield's name, or mali- 
ciously introduced it. Mr. Blomfield in the Letter, which 
is published in this Reply p. 71 ., speaks of the Classical 
Recitations in very flattering terms, and even addresses 
to their author the language of affection, dear Sir ; and 
Professor Monk, who now makes the same complaint, 
as Mr. Blomfield does, of Mr. Barker's malice, and with 
equal justice, personally thanked Mr. Barker for his 
courteous treatment of him in that book. Nay, Mr. 
Blomfield as the Quarterly Reviewer of the New Greek 
Thesaurus, has in p. 347. been constrained to admit, 
that " the Editors manifest a commendable impartiality 
in their quotations from contemporary scholars." 

Mr. Blomfield's continued course of injustice towards 
Mr. Barker will never induce Mr. Barker to deviate from 
that bold and honest path, which he has hitherto evenly 
pursued in regard to Mr. Blomfield — he will ever,in proud 
defiance of all misrepresentation and obloquy, persist in 
praising Mr. Blomfield, where he believes him to be right, 
and censuring him, whenever he thinks him mistaken ; 
and if Mr. Blomfield can prove Mr. Barker to be mis- 
taken in any passage, which is contained in this first part 
of the Reply, Mr. Barker will with the greatest promp- 
titude acknowledge the errour and correct it in the second 
part. 

But to afford to Mr. Blomfield and to the public a satis- 
factory 



PREFACE. XI 

factory proof that Mr. Barker neither was nor is actuated 
by any malice towards Mr. Blomfield, he here publicly 
expresses his readiness to take Mr. Blomfield's hand, 
whenever Mr. Blomfield is disposed to take his, and Mr. 
Barker imposes no other condition on Mr. Blomfield 
than one, which Mr. Blomfield, if an honest man, xvotild 
voluntarily practise — to act fairly towards Mr. Barker 
in matters of authorship, neither basely suppressing the 
mention of his name, where justice demands its insertion, 
nor anonymously stepping aside to introduce it for pur- 
poses of malignant ridicule and undeserved abuse. 

" Like a certain animal in the eastern part of the world, 
who [which] is reported to be extremely fond of climbing 
a tree for that purpose, he merely pelts the author with 
his own produce." Rob. Hall's Essential Difference be- 
twixt Christian Baptism and the Baptism of John more 
fully stated and confirmed, p. 65. 

Mr. Blomfield appears to have derived the black blood 
in his veins from that blood of Prometheus, which flowed 
to the ground, as the vulture preyed upon his liver, and 
from which sprang the herba promethea, described to be 
capable of producing antipathy and hatred. 

Invidiam fuimus. Num me deus obruit? an qua? 
Secta Prometheis dividit herba jugis? 

Propert. 1, 12,9. 

See the Classical Recreations, p. 260 — 1. 

ere nqo[XYjQsv$ 
"Eis'kavz, xa» thjAou [iyj *£ hsgov ysyovotg. 

Callimach. Fr. 135. 

Mr. Blomfield with that utter disregard to truth, which 
pervades his Review, and that unblushing impertinence, 
which attends him on every such occasion, has in p. 340. 
observed that " Mr. Hermann (in his Critique on the 
New Greek Thesaurus) has intermixed a few trivial ob- 
jections, extorted from him by a sense of decency, amongst 
several pages of the most fulsome and unsupported, al- 
though, he doubts not, unbought panegyric," meaning 

to 



XII PREFACE. 

to insinuate that such a high eulogy must have been 
bought at a stipulated price. But he quite forgot that 
he was supposing Hermann's mind to have the same 
mercenary and base views, as till his own, and the public 
not to know that the Reviewer was himself the hireling 
of Mr. Gifford. The reader will be surprised to hear 
•that the writer of the passage just quoted, who intimates 
his shrewd suspicion that Hermann's "panegyric" of. 
the New Gr. Thes. was bought, has actually received 
the enormous sum of one hundred guineas for his abuse 
of the same work. Half that sum would have been the 
wages for any ordinary writer ; but Mr. Gifford was so, 
well pleased with this ." most extraordinary'' writer, that 
he paid him as much more. It would have been curious, 
to know in what way Mr. Gifford expressed himself ta 
the Reviewer on this interesting occasion. Did he expa- 
tiate in the borrowed learning, which graces the Review, 
or in the desperate malignity, which pervades it, or in 
the contemptible witf, which animates it, or in the vulgar 
and coarse abuse, which disgraces it, or in the egregious 
blunders, which run through every page of it? 

Since the appearance of the Review Mr. Blomfield has 
been preferred by the Bishop of London and the Earl of 
Liverpool to the Living of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, re- 
ported to be worth ^2000 a year; and Mr. Barker sin- 
cerely congratulates Mr. Blomfield on this preferment, not; 
only because he beholds in it the deserved reward of scho- 

f As in smooth oil the razor best is whet, 
So wit is by politeness sharpest set : 
Their want of edge from their offence is seen ; 
Both pain us least, when exquisitely keen. 

Pr, Young. 

Oh ! if venerable Time, 
Slain at the foot of Pleasure, be no crime, 
Then with his silver beard and magic wand, 
Let Comus (Momus) rise Archbishop of the land m x 
Let him your Rubric and your Feasts prescribe, 
Grand Metropolitan of all the tribe. 

Cowi'Eit's Progress of Errour, 

larship, 



IPREPACfc. xiii 

larship, but because it will relieve him from the disgraceful 
necessity of being any longer the hireling of Mr. Gifford, 
of being employed to write a fair Critique on a Work, 
and then abusingthe confidence reposed in him by writing 
a most unfair one, and sacrificing the credit of the Quar- 
terly Review and the reputation of its Editor, to the gra- 
tification of his own low-minded spite against the Editors 
of the New Greek Thesaurus. To inform Mr. Blomfield 
of " the disastrous lustre," which has been thrown on his 
character by the writing of that article, which is an im- 
perishable record of his own turpitude, would be as un- 
pleasanttohis ears, as it would be disgusting to the public. 
He has had two proofs of the serious impressions pro- 
duced by the perusal of that precious composition in the 
two Papers, which appeared in the last No. of the Clas- 
sical Journal; and he may have a third proof in the 
Monthly Magazine for April 1820. p. 195. 

Professor Monk, in the Preface to his Edition of the 
Hippolytus, p. viii. makes the following acknowledg- 
ment : — " Libello nostro multum ornamenti et subsidii 
adjecerunt observationes quoedam,suis iniocis memoratae, 
•quas ab amico accepimus, ingenii, doctrina?, ac virtu- 
tis fama clarissimo, Carolo Jacoho Blomfield'' 

Perhaps the learned Professor in the 7th No. of the 
Mus. Crit. will, like his illustrious master, Porson, favour 
tis with a " Supplement to the Preface" for the purpose 
of explaining in what sense Mr. Barker is to understand 
that Mr. Blomfield is most renowned for his virtue? In 
the mean time he will allow Mr. Barker to reason from 
what he knows respecting Mr. Blomfield, and to inquire 
whether the Professor saw in the spirit of prophecy the 
public display of virtue, which would be made by Mr. 
Blomfield at a certain Anniversary Dinner of the Noble- 
men and Gentlemen educated in that College, of which 
Mr. Barker had himself the happiness of being a mem- 
ber, when Judge Graham was in the chair, and when Mr. 
Blomfield, to speak classically with the late Mr.lGaches, 
unsuccessfully attempted " to lengthen the monosyllables" 

of 



XIV PHEI-ACE. 

of the jovial party ? though it is evident from Mr, Bloui- 
iield's Glossary on Aeseh. Agam. 236\ that he has some 
secret relish for such matters : — 

" Recte Hemsius notavit virginem sic vocari, quia- 
jeevgog est otlloiGv dvlpcg. Paginam exemplis polluere su- 
persedeo. Valck. Anim. ad Amnion. 40. facet am dili- 
gentia3 suai in hac re illustranda excusationem profert." 

Or does the Professor consider Mr. Blomfield's claim 
to the epithet, virtutis fama clarissimus, to rest on the 
unjust suppression, or the unfair mention of Mr. Barker's 
name in Mr. Blomfield's compositions r or on the effort, 
which he made in conjunction with the Professor himself 
to establish, in opposition to the Classical Journal, the 
Museum Criticum, (which, however, only lived till the 
publication of the sixth No., notwithstanding the grea.t 
advantage, which it had enjoyed of having the first No> 
twice reviewed in the British Critic, once during the reign 
of the enlightened Dr. Nares, and once during the admi- 
nistration of the learned Mr. Rennell,) because the three 
B.s were said to sting them in the Classical Journal 
(viz. J. Bailey, E. H. Barker, and G. Burges,) and to 
visit the supposed sins of those Scholars pn Mr. Valpy, 
the proprietor of that Work, who would have most readily 
inserted in it any further replies to the articles alluded to, 
if Professor Monk and Mr. Blomfield had continued 
to write any? Or does Professor Monk erect Mr, Blom- 
field's title, to be considered as a man most celebrated 
for his virtue, on the unproved and unproveable charge 
of plagiarism against the modest Stanley for pirating 
J. Casaubon's Notes on the Agamemno of Aeschylus, 
or on the charge of dishonourable conduct against Dr. 
Askew, which Mr. Barker will in the second part of this 
Reply demonstrate to be absolutely false ? Or finally, on 
the foul libel against the Editors of the New Gr. Thes. 
" in the abused shape of the vilest of" Reviews? 

Mr. Blomfield has in that Review asserted a gross 
falshood respecting the I}elphin and Variorum Classics,, 
which are in the course of publication by Mr. Valpy; 

and 



PREFACE. XV 

and, as Mr. Gifford has been unintentionally betrayed 
into the circulation of this calumny, he will, no doubt, 
as a man of honour, make a suitable apology for it at the 
end of the next No. of the Quarterly Review, 

Extract from a Letter addressed by W. Gifford, Esq. to Mr. E. H. Barker, 
dated Dec. 1, 1811. 

'I As for the great work, which you meditate, and it is 
indeed a great and noble one, I doubt not that you will 
ponder deeply, before you deliver any part of it out of 
your hands. A re-publication merely, (though even that 
might be useful,) would be discreditable to yourselves, 
and disgraceful to your country. In the course of three 
centuries, during which critical learning has so much im- 
proved, there must be a thousand opportunities of per- 
fecting a new Edition. You know, I presume, that two 
or three Greek Scholars on the Continent have been em- 
ployed many years in collecting materials for such a 
work as you meditate ; and though the magnitude and 
expence of the undertaking, and the miserable situation 
of the presses abroad, have checked their designs, yet it 
is pretty certain that their papers may be procured for a 
few hundred pounds. You should not take a step till 
this is fully ascertained and arranged, and your intentions 
made fully known in Germany. 

" To a work so matured and full, as a national honour, 
I should wish all imaginable success. If your coming 
Prospectus, which I beg you to ponder well, announces 
any thing of this kind, I shall be most happy not merely 
to give my name — that is an inconsiderable trifle — but 
to use all my influence in every possible way for its pro- 
motion and service. But I earnestly deprecate a mere 
republication, which will subject us to the scorn and an- 
ger of Europe, as it will interfere with better projected 
Editions." 

Mr. Barker considers the publication of a Review of 
the New Gr. Thes., so overflowing with malignity to its 
Editors, as that which appeared in the 44th No. of the 

Quarterly 



XVI PREFACE. 

Quarterly Review, to be but an awkward mode for Mr. 
Gifford to shew his good will to the work and his zeal in 
the cause of Greek literature ; and Mr. Barker cannot 
regard as any great proof of Mr. GirTord's personal good 
will the conduct of Mr. G., which he has detailed in 
p. 73. of this Reply, in having allowed Mr. Blomfield in 
the Quarterly Review of Monk's Hippolytus to make an 
unjust attack on, and to point ungenerous sneers at, 
Mr. Barker's Classical Recreations. 

The estimation, in which Mr. Blomfield's conduct to- 
wards Scholars in general, is held by impartial foreigners, 
will be sufficiently apparent from the Jena-Review of his 
Callimachus, of which Mr. Barker has appended a trans- 
lation executed by a gentleman, in whose acquaintance 
with the German language and whose accuracy he places 
great reliance. The Jena-Review of Mr. Blomfield's 
Edition of the Persae of Aeschylus will also be subjoined 
and that this article is the composition of a most eminent 
scholar, is evident from the remark of Hermann ad Elem. 
Doctr. Metr. 809. :— 

" Caeterum aliquanto verecundius loquuturum spero 
virurn optimum (Blomfieldium,) ubi reputaverit, quo 
quisque doctior sit, i. e. quo magis didicerit, quantum sit, 
quod nesciat, eo solere modestiorem esse. Profuerit au- 
tem inspexisse censuram Aeschyli Persarum in Diariis 
Ienensibus m. Iunio h. a. (1816.) fol. 105. 106. A TALI 
VIRO SCRIPTAM, CUI NON FACILE QUIS SUPERBIUS 
RESPONDEAT." 

To the Jena-Reviewer of his Callimachus, p. 79- of 
this Reply, Mr. Blomfield probably alluded, when in the 
Notice of the New Gr. Thes. p. 340. he writes with his 
usual flippancy : — " Mr. Hermann and his School never 
miss an opportunity of lavishing their censure on Porson 
and on those English Scholars, whom they facetiously 
enough term Porson's disciples, while, on the other hand, 
it is a sufficient title to their esteem to flatter the German 
critics at the expense of the English." Eor the Jena- 
Reviewer terms Mr. Blomfield the too credulous Scholar 

of 



PREFACE. xvii 

of Porson; and as Mr. Blomfield on Aesch. Prom. 277. 
says, " Magni viri rationes minus perspectas habeo, in 
ejus licet verba modo non jurare sim addictus," there 
can be no great wonder at the expression. 

Mr. Barker's vindication of Hermann (p. 56~6o. of this 
Reply) from the charge, brought by Mr. Blomfield in the 
Edinburgh Review of Photii Lexicon, that Mr. Her- 
mann's reason for publishing an uncorrected text of that 
Lexicographer was to be sought in his anxiety to anticipate 
the expected publication of Porson's transcript of the 
Galean MS. — is rendered complete by the following ex- 
tracts : — 

" Feci autem in Tzetza, pariterque in Dracone, quod 
mea sententia faciendum in omnibus est, quae primum 
eduntur, ut ipsam Codicis scripturam, quantumvis vitio- 
sam, exhiberem, quo ne, quod in Hesychio, Etymologo, 
aliisque muitis scriptoribus factum dolemus, de ipsa Co- 
clicum lectione dubitatio moveri posset. In Tzetza qui- 
dem nihil nisi interpunctionem et quaedam eorum errato- 
rum correxi, quae ipse librarius, si iterum adspexisset, 
fuisset correcturus, veluti syllabas bis scriptas, quag se- 
mel scribi debebant. Interpunctio vero talis est in Co- 
dice isto, ut, quum nunc omissa, nunc addita, nunc ante 
earn vocem, post quam debebat, nunc post sequentem 
posita sit, ubique sensum perturbet. Caetera vitia in- 
tacta reliqui : quorum pleraque quivis paullo exercita- 
tior toll ere poterit ; pars etiam hanc utilitatem habebit, 
ut eos, quibus non contigit scriptos Codices inspicere, de 
modo, quo in libris MSS. peccarisolet, admoneant. Ita- 
que neque iota subscriptum, nisi ubi in Codice est, ad- 
didi, nee, quae multa inveniuntur errata librarii, qui com- 
pendia Codicis, quern descripsit, male legerat, correxi : 
quod quum aliis in rebus, turn frequentissime in confu- 
sione particularum napa et 7rs$ factum est. Interdum, 
sed raro, et in Dracone et Tzetza de vitiosa Codicis 
scriptura diserte monui lectorem. Hie semel dictum 
volo, quamvis quid vitiosum videatur, earn non typo- 
thetae, sed Codicum culpam esse. Nihil deprehendi, 

b quod 



XV1U PREFACE. 

quod operas errarint, nisi in Tzetza p. 1 14. ubi pro l%g 
restituendum est efof" Hermann. Praef. ad Drac. 
Strat. vii. 

M In hac Arcadii Editione accurate expressum est 
Apographum Gregorii Georgiadae Zalykii, quale ante 
biennium - prsestantissimus Barkerus Lipsiam transmisit. 
Plurima in eo insunt vitia, non illata, ut putamus, Zalykii 
negligentia, sed errore librarii, qui Codicem Parisinum 
scripsit : sic tamen comparata ilia maximam partem, ut 
nullonegotio corrigi possint, inprimis si adhibeas diver- 
sitatem scriptural ex altero Codice excerptam notatam- 
que in imo margine paginarum. Hcec prczmoneri opor- 
tere visum fuit, ne forte operce talibus cavillationibus 
premerentur, quales in Photium Lipsiensem iactas com- 
meminimus, quum illius Lexicon, consulto cogitatoque 
non abstersis libri MS. vitiis, prodiisset" Schaefer. Praef. 
ad librum, qui nuper Lipsise prodiit cum hoc titulo : 
'ApKtxSiw Tlsfi Tqvoqv. E Codd. Par. primum edidit E. H. 
Barker. Addita est Editoris Epistola Critica ad Io. Fr. 
Boissonade. 

It may be remarked that, if Mr. Blomfield in pub- 
lishing a Greek MS. would really deviate from that 
plan, which Hermann on such occasions deliberately fol- 
lows, viz. the plan of publishing uncorrected the work 
as it is found in the MS., Mr. Barker fervently hopes 
that Mr. Blomfield will never have the opportunity of 
acting in such a heterodox manner. 

To the instances of adjectives terminating in aKsog 
being wrongly accented on the ante-penultima, instead 
of the penultima, cited in p. 8. of this Reply, may be 
added hccTivOctXsog from H. Steph. Thes. Ind., for which 
Schneider in his Greek and German Dictionary rightly 
gives liotrivQuXeog. But the same learned Scholar had 
no occasion to admit into his Dictionary the barbarous 
word * yovvukyog, o, q, even with an intimation of doubt 
as to its genuineness. For there can be no question that 
it is a mere misprint in some of the Editions of Hederic 
for # yowofayvig. The genius of the Greek language in- 

contestably 



PREFACE. XIX 

contestably requires that all adjectives formed from such 
nouns as ccXyog, to, should end in y\g. Mr. Blomfield in 
the Gloss, ad Aesch. Ag. 357*. has erroneously written 
YiXog, FatuiiSy for qhog, and appears to have been drawn 
into the mistake by confounding it with vjtog, Clavus. 

Mr. Barker has in p. 65-8. of this Reply intimated that 
such is the strict impartiality observed by the Editors of 
the New Gr. Thes., that they are as ready to acknow- 
ledge and correct their own errours, as to point out the 
mistakes of other critics, and as one proof of the fact the 
following passage may be cited : — 

" Aristoph. Pac. 73. Ei<rrryay hlivoaov jj.iyi<rTOV kocv 
Qotpov, Schol. v7rspjJLsye§yj* jxeyia-TOv ydg o^ogvi A'itvyi* Hinc 
Eur. Here. F. 638. 'A vso'iug \loi (plxov' cc%9og Is to yyj^ocg 
aisi BapvTsgov AtTvotg <r>t07r£Xc*jv 67n xgari u^Tca, BXz(pccpccv 
(tkotsivov (pci^og s7riKaXi\ljccv : atque ex eo Cic. de Se- 
nect. 2. Quae plerisque senibus sic odiosa est, ut onus 
se Aetna gravius dicant sustinere, quod proverbium mi- 
nus recte interpretatus est E. H Barker, tanquam degi- 
gantibus dictum, quos Aetna premere dicebatur. Vide 
Muret. Var. Lect. 7, 15. p. 158. Ruhnk." Nov. Thes. 
Gr. p. 1687. c. 

The Reviewer, ajc£/6>?Y o^^crt Avyxsvg, Theocr. 22, 
194. can rind in the New Gr. Thes. nothing useful or 
valuable, and he brings to Mr. Barker's recollection a 
passage, which he has read in an amusing little book : — 

" Not to recur to those venerable tomes of antiquity, 
which have been delivered down to us from the peaceful 
ages of monkish darkness, modern examples present 
themselves in great abundance to our choice. What is 

contained in all the Treatises of Mr. Wm. Wh n on 

the Trinity ? Nothing. What is contained in the mighty 
and voluminous Epic Poems of Sir Rd. Black more, 
Knight ? Absolute nothing. What again can be col- 
lected from that universal maze of words, called the Uni- 
versal History of all Nations, Languages, Customs, 
Manners, Empires, Governments, Men, Monsters, Land- 
Fights, Sea-Fights, and a million more of inexhaustible 

topics ? 



XX PREFACE, 

topics ? What, I say, can be comprehended in the te- 
dious pages of that ostentatious history? Every reader 
will be ready to answer, Nothing. The works of Den- 
nis, Des Cartes, Lord Sh — f— - — ry, and the mighty Mr. 

W — rb n, all treat of the same immortal subject, 

however the ingenious Authors, out of pure modesty, 
may have been contented to let them pass under the fic- 
titious names of Plays, Systems of Philosophy, Miscel- 
laneous Reflections, and Divine Legations," Dissertation 
upon Nothing, in Pompey the Little, Bk. 2. c. 1. 

Lest the Reviewer should imagine that this first part 
of the Reply has been the elaborate production of many 
weeks, it will be proper to observe that the whole MS. 
was forwarded to the publisher on the 24th of April ex- 
cept the concluding part, which was despatched to him 
two or three days afterwards. 

The Greek words, to which an asterisk is prefixed, are 
not to be found in the Thes. of H. Stephens. 

Thetford, June 10, 1820. 



ARISTARCHUSANTI-BLOMFIELDIANUS: 

OR ' 

A REPLY 

TO THE 

NOTICE OF THE NEW GREEK THESAURUS, 

Inserted in the 44th No. of The Quarterly Review. 



" /"\UANQUAM et scriptores, dum alienos errores detegunt, 
*w cautos multum esse oportet. Quod quidem non in earn 
sententiam accipi volo, ut quiseorum consilia a nobis improbari 
putet, qui ea in re operam navarunt suam, ut studiosa juventus 
non ineptire condisceret, sed, errore enunliato, arceretur alapsu. 
Verum fines quosdam esse novimus, quos ultra nequit verecundia 
consistere ; et nisi parous fueris in reprehendendo, invidia te 
laborare facile suadebis, cum incertum sit judicare, an veritatis 
amor impellat, sive inanis gloriae cupido, quae rationis hunc 
lembum transversum agat. Triumphant enim nonnulli, si quid 
frivolum offendant, et leve, quod cum alios lateat, ipsi proferant 
in apricum, quodque intolerabilius est, non maledictis abstinent 
et conviciis; nulla in eos reverentia, pudore nullo, quorum 
praeceptis et eloquentiae, si quid sapiunt, hocunum saltern debent, 

quod sapiunt. Insaniunt enim ipsi, et alios docent insanire; 

et sicuti Seoecae volumina si quis lectione percurrat, nectareum 
adbibit laticem, quo mores inspergantur, reddanturque meliores; 
ita dentatas chartae furoris quoddam virus juvenilibus animis 
afflare solent. Et quamvis, qui ejusmodi in scripto versantur, 
non, qua laborant, invidiam, sed asmulationem esse praesumserint, 
a suspicione tamen alieni esse non possunt ; semulationem enim 
dixerunt pei turbationem animi, ob bona mentis honorata, quae 
pares aut similes assecuti videantur, non quod ea aliis adsint, sed 
quia nos iis careamus." Benedictus Menzinus Florentinus de 
Literatorum Hominum Invidia, Florentiae, 1 675. 12. pp. 17 — 20. 



IT may be right to premise that the notice of the Greek The- 
saurus, in the 44th No. of the Quarterly Review, instead of ex- 
pressing, as it professes to do, by using the plural we, the opi- 
nions and sentiments of an enlightened junta, in truth expresses 
the opinions and sentiments of the Reviewer alone ; and that 
this Reviewer is as well known to the Editors of the Gr. Thes. 
and to the public, as the Rev. C. J. Blomfield. 

B * You 



2 Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 

" You are now about to enter on a profession which has the 
means of doing much good to society, and scarcely any tempta- 
tion to do harm. You may encourage genius — you may chas- 
tise superficial arrogance, expose falshood, correct errour, and 
guide the taste and opinions of the age in no small degree by the 
books you praise and recommend. All this too may be done 
without running the risk of making any enemies, or subjecting 
yourself to be called to account for your criticism, however 
severe. While your name is unknown, your person is invul- 
nerable : at the same time your own aim is sure ; for you may take 
it at your leisure, and your blows fall heavier than those of any 
writer, whose name is given, or who is simply anonymous. There 
is a mysterious authority in the plural we, which no single name, 
whatever may be its reputation, can acquire ; and under the 
sanction of this imposing style, your strictures, your praises, and 
your dogmas, will command universal attention, and be received 
as the fruit of united talents, acting on one common principle*, 
as the judgements of a tribunal, who decide only on mature deli- 
beration, and who protect the interests of literature with un- 
ceasing vigilance." Dr. Copleston's Advice to a young Re- 
viewer, p. 1. 

The Editors " came to the reading of it " (the Review) " with 
great expectations of finding somewhat answerable to the nobler 
nesse of the attempt. But they quickly discovered that they 
were like to be much disappointed in that hope, and that, be- 
sides a torrent of affected insignificant tautologies, with some 
peevish unworthy reflections, and the repetitions of some old 
and trite cavills, together with severall bundles of grosse mistaks, 
there was litle else to be expected from this Author." Vin- 
dicias Academiarum'f, containing some brief e Animadversions 
upon Mr. Webster's Book, stiledthe Examination of Academies, 
Oxford, 1 654, 4to. p. 1. 

If the writer of the Review had not been as well known to the 
Editors as the Rev. C. J. Blomfield, they "should have been 
apt to have conjectured him to be some obscure person, whose 
peevish malecontented humour had brought him into the gang 
of vulgar levellers, amongst whom his ability to talke of some 
things out of the common road hath raised him to the reputa- 
tion of being t)$ \hkyaq, some extraordinary person ; and by that 
meanes hath blowne him up to such a selfe-confidence, as to 

f The work is anonymous, but is known to be the composition of Dr. SethWard, 
Savilian Professor in the University of Oxford. " Whilst he continued in the 
chair, he writ this in a jocose stile." Dr. Pope, in his Life, p. 26. This curious 
pamphlet might have been cited with advantage by the learned and judicious 
Dr. Copleston, in his Reply to the Calumnies of the Edinburgh Review against 
Oxford. 

think 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianm. 3 

think himselfe fit to reforme the Universityes" {Vindicicz Acade- 
miarum, p. 6.), to direct the literature of the age, and, as he 
himself says, p. 304, to be the " literary censor and protector 
general of the reading world." Reviewers may, however, be 
more fitly styled the scavengers of literature, who fling their dirt 
on all around them. " And though the booke" (Review) " will 
appear unto all judicious" (and impartial) "men but slight and 
contemptible, yet because it may light into the hands of some 
weaker persons, who may be apt to take accusations for con- 
victions, it would not be amisse, if for their sakes somebody 
would vouchsafe more particularly to examine this examiner, 
and to disabuse such as may be seduced by him. It is part of 
that scholastick imprudence, which men of our profession are 
subject unto, to sit downe and satisfie ourselves in our owne 
knowledge of the weakenesse of such adversaries, without tak- 
ing any paines to satisfie others, who are not so well able to 
judge." Find. Acad. p. 6. 

" Nor do we find much fault with the inconstancy, which is 
observable in the abbreviations of proper names ; it is, however, 
a blemish to the work. Thus the same man is at one time Ku- 
ster,, and at another Kust..; Xenophon, Xenoph. and Xen.; Hem- 
ster. and Hemst.; Plutarch and Plat.; Hesi/ch. and lies. This, 
we suppose, is attributable to the different MSS. from which 
the numerous additions are taken ; but it indicates precipitancy 
on the part of the publishers." Reviewer, p. 336. 

The Editors admit the fact to be as the Reviewer states, but 
deny that " the inconstancy" alluded to is any " blemish to the 
work ;" " indicates " any " precipitancy on their part ;" or " is 
attributable to the different MSS. from which the numerous 
additions are taken," because the same " inconstancy " appears, 
where the matter is not taken from any MS. The truth is, that 
the discrepancy results rather from intention than from accident. 
Whether the Editors employ Easterns, Kuster., or Kust., de- 
pends on a variety of circumstances. For instance, suppose an 
abbreviated proper name to end one sentence, such as, confer ibi 
Hemsterh., and suppose the next sentence to begin with Kust., 
who but the Reviewer, " mousing for faults," does not see that 
Kust., which was designed to be the first word of the second 
sentence, might easily be supposed to belong to confer in the pre- 
ceding ? Kust er us, in such a case, would make all perfectly in- 
telligible ; and so the Editors would generally write, though in 
some few instances they may not have done so. Again, Xenopho 
is generally employed at full length when it begins a sentence ; 
but if the Lexicon Xenophonteum be cited, it is sufficient for the 
Editors to say, Lex. Xenoph. Sometimes, for the sake of bre- 

B 2 vity, 



4 Aristarchiis Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

vity, Xen. may be used ; but the Editors rather avoid that, be- 
cause it would not be always clear to the reader whether Xen. 
stood for Xenopho, or for Xenocrates, whose book, Ilsg) rr\s emo 
Tuiv'Evvtigmv TgoQw, was in 1814 edited by the learned and the 
ingenious Dr. Coray. Hes. might mean Hesiod, and is never em- 
ployed when any person might chance to mistake the one for the 
other. It will generally be found in company with Suidas, 
JEtym. M. etc. or used as in this instance, Interprr, ad Hes., 
when it means the great Lexicographer ; and it is never used for 
Hesiod, except in conjunction with Homer's name, or after the 
quotation of a verse from Hesiod. So far, then, is this " in- 
constancy observable in the abbreviations of proper names," 
from " indicating precipitancy," that the Editors have delibe- 
rately employed it ; and so far is it from being any peculiarity in 
their work, that it is equally " observable" in the original work 
of H. Stephens, as the reader may see by turning over a few 
pages at random: but this " observant" Reviewer is like the 
mole, — he works under ground, can see a very little way, 

Critias in Elegiis, ap. Athen. 432.) 

just enough to scratch up a little dirt for a time, and erect a petty 
mound, which he fancies to be a splendid monument of his ta- 
lents, but which proves to be " a striking monument of ill-directed 
labour," p. 347. For by raising the earth he has left room for 
a trap to catch him ; and soon like 

Satan exalted sits, by merit rais'd 
To that bad eminence. 

" We have before remarked one species of inconsistency, of 
which the Editors are guilty, in their abbreviations of authors* 
names ; another fault, of greater importance, is the manner in 
which they quote the titles of works ; for instance, in p. 96 we 
find one of the imperfect Lexicons, published by Mr. Bekker, 
mentioned with its title at full length, ' Xwctyayri Ae^icav •/grpipM 
ex. Sicttpogwv Hotp&v rs kou 'P^roqoDV 7roXXcov in Bekkeri Anecd. Gr. 
T. 1. p. 334./ while in another place we find the same Lexicon 
quoted without any title, except 'Bekkeri Anecd. Gr. T. 1. 
p. 335 ;' and in a third place it is called ' Grammaticus S. Germ, f 
in p. 119 it is twice quoted within five lines, with its full-length 
title; but in p. 137 we rind ' Svmy, Ae%. x^ ""' ^ n P* 14 ^ ^ 
appears again at full length; and in p. 145, * Xvmyooyt) Aegeoov 
Xgw'wwS All this bespeaks great haste and inattention." Re- 
viewer, p. 342/f The 

-{-The Reviewer here twice uses \i'£iav for *.i%t&>v ; so in p. 307, and again in p. 308. 
But in p. 305, n. he has more rightly used h'^uv. It is a curious coincidence be- 
tween 



Aristarckus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 5 

The Editors admit the facts stated by the Reviewer, but deny 
the correctness of the inference deduced from them. The hu- 
mane laws of the country do not allow a man to be tried twice 
for the same offence ; but the Reviewer was not on this account, 
or from " a sense of decency," (p. 340,) restrained from indict- 
ing the Editors on that very charge, which Professor Hermann 
had previously brought against them, and for which, if they did 
not fully reply, they had at least offered in extenuation a satis- 
factory apology. 

Professor Hermann : — " Prseterea vero etiam alia quasdam, 
quae minoris momenti sunt, aliquid compendii quum libro ipsi, 
turn operae Editorum afferre poterant. Cujus est, quas toties 
citatur, Huvaywyrj Ae%swv xgYi<rly,u)v ex. $i<x<p6gcov 2o<poov ts x«» 
'Pt)To§wv 7roh\wv 9 in Bekkeri Anecd. edita : quas quum brevissime 
ZvvayaoyY) Ae%swv vocari posset, cur turn saepe longus iste et mo- 
lestus titulus ponitur? Sed videmus Editores ipsos tandem 
pertassos hujus tituli etiam brevius scripsisse Swctywyr) Aetjsoov 
XgYi<rlpwv, ut p. 197- c. 208. c." 

The Editors in reply : — " The Editors now still more briefly 
express the title thus, Xvvcty. Ae%. X^°"» Inexperienced as they 
were in these matters at the commencement of their under- 
taking, they could not, till after some practice, become expert 
abridgers of titles. They venture to assert that they have now 
carried the principle of abridgment to the utmost possible ex- 
tent, without the sacrifice of perspicuity, and that in this quali- 
fication at least they are unrivalled." 

But the Editors would ask, what right the Reviewer has to 
complain of their " inconstancy" in this respect, when he is 
himself equally at war with himself in his own compositions ? 
Take the following instances : — 

" Lex. Seguier. p. 394. 126. 424." 

Blomf. Gloss, ad Aesch.Agam. 233. 331. 502. 

" Lexicon Seguier. p. 332. Bekker." 
Ibid. 87. 

" Lexicon Seguier. p. 444. Ed. Bekker." 
Mus. Crit. 6, 208. 

" Lexic. Seguier. ap. Bekker. p. 337." 
Gloss, ad Agam. 3. 

" Lex. Seguier. p. 371. 378. 400. Ed. Bekker." 
Ibid. 74. 92. 331. 



tween him, i. e. Mr. Blomfield in disguise, and Mr. Blomfield, in propria persona, 
that the latter in Mus. Crit. iv. 562, when giving a brief notice of Bekker's Anecd. 
Gr. vol. i. and citing the Lexicon in question, has the very same mistake j * 2tf«*- 
yuyn Atliav x^d/un S* hx<p'o£<uv ^,o<pZv t 1. "Sefurruv, n kxi 'P^re^uv roXXuu. The 
Editors have the satisfaction of agreeing with Mr. Blomfield in the propriety of 
reading ^ZoQutrm for Sffw*. ,. T 

" Lex. 



Aristarckus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 

« Lex. Sangerm. p. 309. Ed. Bekker." 

Mus. Crit. 5, 80. 
" Lexico Sangerm. ap. Bekker. Anecd. Graec. I. p. 374." 

Gloss, ad Pers. 360. 
" Lexic. Sangerman. p. 336. Ed. Bekker." 

Ibid. 431. 
" Lexicon S. German. (ocXKog «A<pa£.)" 

Ibid. 559- 
" Lexic. Sangerman. in Bekkeri Anecd. Gr. T. I. p. 443." 

Ibid. 811. 
" Lexic. Sangerm. ap. Bekker. Anecd. Graec. I. p. 46." 

Add. in Nott. ad Pers. 6o. 
" Grammatico Sangerman. p. 412. Ed. Bekker." 

Gloss, ad Again. £05. 
" Grammat. Sangerm. ap. Bekker. Anecd. Graec. I. p. 372." 

Gloss, ad Pers. 788. 
" Grammaticus SanGerman. ap. Bekker. Anecd. Graec. I. 
p. 469." 

Ibid. 873. 
" Grammat. SanGerm. in Bekkeri Anecd. I. p. 84." 

Ibid. 1032. 
" Grammaticus ap. Bekker. Anecd. Graec. I. p. 370." 

Add. in IN ott. ad Pers. 669- 
" Lexicon Seguerianum apud Bekkerum, p. 381." 

Elmsiey in Mus. Crit. 5, 44. 
" Phrynich. App. Soph. p. 16, 7. p. 72." 

Blomf. Gloss, ad Agam. 502. 620. 
" Phrynichi Appar. Sophist, p. 29. Ed. Bekker." 

Ibid. 235. 
" Antiatticista Sangerm. p. 104. 83. 109." 

Ibid. 181. Add. ad v. 798. 
" Antiatticistae Sangermanici, p. 79-31. Ed. Bekker." 
Blomf. ad Callimachi Vitam e Suida. 
" H. Stephanus in Thesauro L. G. T. iv. 296. D." 

Gloss, ad Agam. 318. 
" H. Steph. Thes. L. G. in voce." 

Ibid. 517. 
" H. Stephanus Thes. L.G." 

Elmsiey in Mus. Crit. 4, 481. 
" Cf. Matthiae. Gr. Gr. p. 372." 

Gloss, ad Agam. 575. 
" Miror Matthiaeum in Gr. Gr. p. 320." 

Ibid. 579. 
" Apollon. Lex." 

Ibid. 268. 

" Apollon. 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 7 

" Apollon. Lex. Homer." 

Ibid. 509- 

The reader will be surprised to hear that in Mr. Blomfield's 
Gloss, in Aesch. Agam. Tiberius Hemsterhusius appears under 
so many names, that, in the language of the Reviewer, p. 328, 
" if he could suddenly revive, he would doubt his own identity." 
1. He is called Hemsterhusius, then T. Hemsterhusius, then Hem- 
sterh., then Hemsterhus., then vir summus, T. Hemsterhusius, 
see v. 926. 978. 990. 1218. 1248. Mr. Blomfield has more 
than once put out the e of Professor Schaefer. For, though he 
generally writes Sch&efcr, yet in the note on Agam. 1345. we 
have Sch'&fer, and so we read in the Gloss, on v. 701. 

Now, if similar discrepancies in the Gr. Thes. " bespeak 
great haste and inattention," as the Reviewer, with more ma- 
lignity than sense, contends, he must allow that his own compo- 
sitions are equally hasty and careless productions, and thus his 
argument would prove too much for him. 

Professor Hermann, in his Review of the Gr. Thes., has no- 
ticed the errour of the Editors in writing a Jamblicho pro ab 
Jamblicho; and the Editors, in their Reply, have shewn that the 
errour is by no means peculiar to themselves. In addition to the 
instances there adduced, they subjoin the following : — A lam- 
blicho, Passow in Beckii Actis Semin. Reg. et Societ. Philol. 
Lips. 1, 92. ; A lacobsio, Schaefer. ad Gregor. 1049- ; E iuricis, 
Sprengel. Antiq. Botan. p. 71.; A iunctura, Matth Animadv. 
in Hymn. Horn. 357. ; A love, H. Steph. T. L. G. v. 'Asgo7rsTr}s ; 
A iunioribus, ap. Eund. v. KwraXis', a iudicibus, ap. Eund. v. 
IIagoiiTYi(ri$. Nor has even Mr. Blomfield escaped the commis- 
sion of this mistake, a Junone, Mus. Grit. 6, 263. ; a Junger- 
manno, Gloss, ad Aesch. Pers. 403.; but ibid. 545. we have 
ab Joanne. 

A similar inconsistency appears in Mr. Blomfield's mode of 
accenting adjectives, which terminate in uXso$. Aesch. Pers. 545. 
he has thus edited, Aiu fxvdaXaoig luxqwi koK7tov§ Tsyyovv', But 
in the Gloss, we have: — " MvdclXeog, Madidus. Suid. MuSaAeag* 
&ia£gop£OU£, MuouXza daxgvcri, xai /xuSaAeov llvyqov, iraq Aq^Xo^oo. 11 
The reader might be apt to suspect /xuSaXeoj to be a misprint for 
the proper form pvbaXzoc, if it did not also occur in the Index in 
Gloss. In the Gloss, in Agam. 187. <poira.Keoc is to be seen. 
In the Persae, v. 176. Mr. Blomfield has rightly edited Ileqa-cuv 
yrigciXEcx. 7TKrTU)fjLUTci : in the note, however, on v. 687. he gives 
yyiguXsoL, Of yYigctXsos an example occurs in Theodorus Prodr. 
ap. Boissonad. ad Pseudo-Herodian. Partitt. 165. But the 
Editors will here cite the new Gr. Thes. p. 1493. a., though, in 

the 



S Arista rchus Anti-Blonifieldianus. 

the opinion of the Reviewer, there is no good to be found in 
such a Nazareth : — 

" A\Qu\£o$, et ai&otXosis, Jacobs, ad Anth. Pal. 228. Blom- 
fieldius Gloss, ad Aesch. Pr. 620. de terminationibus in u\so$ 
pauca notavit, sed perperam scripsit aldaXsoj, ct^dXeog, lsi^d\so§ 9 

* v^ydXeos, (quod est vocabulum nihili, pro quo ubique repo- 
ncndum est v^dXiog, ut v^olXiot^ pro * MjpaXsorjjs, quamvis a 
Schneidero in Lex. utraque forma probata sit,) ol^dXso§ i 

* p»]X<paXeof, dgydXso$, xs$dXeo$ 9 TagGdXeos, $gixaAso£, xovktuXsos, 
pro — eo$. Adde dyaXio$." 

Here it may be remarked, in passing, that this matter is in 
truth irrelevant, and that the word under discussion, a\QotXeo$, 
would have suffered nothing by its exclusion from the Thesau- 
rus. But the Editors reply that the general observation, in- 
troduced about the mode of accenting adjectives in aXsog, is 
important to the youthful reader, particularly as so excellent a 
scholar as Mr. Blomfield is, has mistaken the point; nor. is he 
the only offender. " KuvQdgiog, et xctvQdgeog" Schneider. Lex. 
H. Stephens in Thes. Ind. more properly reads xctvQ<xgso$. " Kviv- 
<rdXso$ } su, sov } — Hesych.'\ Schneider. Lex. But H. Steph. 
Thes. rightly gives xvi<rotXeo$.> Schneider too presents us with 
sgsvQdXsog for egsuQot\so$. The adjectives in uXeo$ are exceedingly 
numerous, and all of; them, with these few exceptions, are ac- 
cented on the penult. .Itmay therefore be rightly inferred that 
the exceptions are but so many "corruptions. 

The same "inconstancy in the abbreviation of authors' names,". 
which is charged on the Editors of the New Gr. Thes. as some- 
thing blameable, quite peculiar to them, and " indicating great 
haste and inattention," occurs in the notes of the excellent Pro- 
fessor Boissonade ad Pseudo- Herodian. Partitt. 294., " Vide nunc 
omnino Thesauri H. Stephani Editionem Londinensem, p. 512. 
extr." and p. 295. " Deloco Porphyrii vide omnino Thesaurum 
II. Stephani Londinensis Editionis T. I. p. 519." And even in 
Schneider's Lex. : thus in v. ' AvdgsUsXov it is Xeno., but in v. 
Aia3-/)fj,u it is Xenoph. So in v. * 'A<pga.o-i&ofjt,£oiZ it is Timo Phli. 
but in v. rqa^ohloLCTxaXll^ it is Timon Phlias, Again, in v. 

* 'I(roygaL<po g we have Timo Phlias. ,but in Koy%o$ we read Timon, 

If " inconstancy in the abbreviation of authors' names" "in- 
dicates," as the Reviewer states, "great haste and inattention" 
in the Editors, they suppose that he will allow that mistakes 
in the references of H. Stephens, occurring so frequently as they 
do, and mistakes also in the Dictionary of Professor Schneider, 
prove " great haste and inattention," and thus the reader will 
arrive at that " extraordinary, most extraordinary" (Reviewer, 

p. 304. 



Aristarchus Anli-Blomfieldianus. 9 

p. 304. 341.) fact that the Thes. of H. Stephens, which the Re- 
viewer, p. 316, calls a " stupendous monument of human indus- 
try and learning," and which " appears to have been eleven 
years in printing," the Thes. of the Editors, and the valuable 
Dictionary of Professor Schneider have been all written with 
" great haste and inattention." H. Stephens sub v. 'Atoo has II. ft. 
for O. (130.): sub v. Altyx, II. A. for £1. (648.): sub v. Aloov, 
II. H. for E. (685.) : sub v. 'Eirctico, Jristoph. Vesp. xotrctye- 
\wy.evos 8g ouk Indieis, for Pesp. (51(3.) xotT<xysXcvy,svo$ ph ovv 
Oux. £7roiisi$ vif dvdgcov : and so in a thousand other instances, 
which have been corrected by the Editors f. 

Numerous examples of what the Reviewer would most un- 
justly call " great haste and inattention," in Prof. Schneider's 
Dictionary, have been pointed out in Prof. Passow's book 

entitled Uber, Zweck, Anlage und Erg'anzung Griechischer 
Worterbiicher, Berlin 1812. 8. pp. 140.; and even the third 
Edition of the Lexicon, which has recently appeared, contains 
several inaccuracies. 

In rqoLpix.Q%&a<TKot.\ily\$ there is Philias. for PhHas. : in riavaxejos, 
votvdvvis for 7rava?o)£. Again : both the 2d and 3d Editions have 
« *reml6rei(>cL, y), i. q. yevereiga, Genetrix, vox dubia." Well 
might this eminent Scholar doubt about this word; for its 
very composition shews it to be a vox nihili. The right word 
is yevvotioreigot, which Schneider has in its place, where he refers 
to Orpheus, whose words are Hymn 55 = 54, 12. rswoSorsigu, 

In 'PopSog Schneider's Lexicon, 2d and 3d Editions, thus cites 
a passage from Archytas, H. Steph. Excerpt, p. 84. Kcti roic 
popGois, to1$ ev ruis rsKsTa1$ Kivou^evoag to uuto (rv^aivst. In the 



f An "extraordinary" mistake of H. Stephen?, copied from the Bulgaria 
Lexica, (occasioned partly by a faulty reading, and partly by a faulty punctuation 
of a passage in the Editions of Arrian,) occurs p. 144 = 1464. Ed. nov.: — " Kivccilos, 
in V V. LL. Gemma, quae et i^uD^uloi \i6os, et \l$e$ 'hhxle, et pa^ya-glnis, Gallice 
Perle, Margarita, Unio ; Bacca conchea, Virgilio in Culice ; Grauum Rubri Ma- 
ris, Hieronymo. Erythraeus etiam lapillus appellatur. Arrian. 'HoxxXta, Xtyovo-t 
xivctthov t£sf£s~v u tJj §a.Xuo , o"n xifffiou yuvouxn'iov, ovriva. xa) j/j revro 'in at ri t£ 'lvs*uiv 
t^j X,a>ga-S Ta xyuytfta, iru.^ ilfAiag uyiviovn; v/rovon wnopivot inxoft't^ovtriy rov fAu^ya^i- 
tw *q 'lv}a» yXutrtry xccXt'oftivov." The passage referred to may be found in lad. 8,8. 
p. 565. Raphel. whence it will appear that it is most inaccurately and imper- 
fectly cited : Kx) raht (*.zri%i<riooi 'lv?<wi/ -Trig) 'KgxxXtavs Xiycvtnv' WiXS'cvrx xvrov iru.- 
ffuv yw xa) §xXair>rav, xa) xa0aoxvrx o, rt Tig x&xov, xivuilc; \\ivsuv Is ry S-xXoio-ff'f 
Ko<T(/,oi yvvatxYnov, ovriva xa.) tig rovro 'in o'i rt Vc. 'li<5iiv f'vif £o>ott$ to. aywyivu <rag 
tlfAiccs ayi/iovris ffftavhy cuviofjcttei ixxopi^ovj-r xa) 'EXXrivtuV 1\ vruXat xa) 'Vaxa'tcu* vvv 
%tr<n * •roXvxriavot xa.) iu^xi(*.6nt t uit^ovt irt o"Vov6n unovrat rov (jta^yapirnv o*ii rot SaXacr- 
fftov, eliru <r*j 'ivluy yXuaoy xttki'o puio*. The true reading and the right punctuation 
are silently restored by Toup Euiendd. in Suid.jl, 344. : Ka) xa.6aoa.yra. o,ri <rt£ *«• 
xh x.'i*a2o;. Instances of the permutation of xitatoos and xivahs are given in the 
New Gr. Thes. p. 1464. and 1467-8. 

third 



10 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

third Edition we have, " ' AyaK\j.cLTWKeb$, 6, Manetho 4, 569." 
for # ayaAjU.0TU7T£Uf , and not by any blunder of the press, because 
it follows 'AyctXfxoiTooti. But in Manetho himself we have: 
*Eu%oclvov$, 7rakoL(j.Y)<nv uyx\fA0TV7rel$, §eo7rkoi<rTct$ . The infe- 
rence, which any impartial reader would draw from these 
and similar mistakes, however numerous, is not that they 
prove " great haste and inattention ;" (for how could the 
Thes. of H. Stephens, which the Reviewer himself admits to 
have been in the press eleven years, be considered as written 
with " great haste and inattention ?") but that they afford evi- 
dence of the melancholy fact that, notwithstanding the greatest 
care and attention, such mistakes will more or less be found in 
all works of any magnitude. The mere collection of them 
into a Review makes out no case against the general merits of 
any work — it only proves the malignity of the Reviewer in col- 
lecting them. 

The Reviewer, p. 340, cites the following passage from the 
Reply of the Editors to Professor Hermann's Review of the 
New Gr. Thes., and puts in Italics three words, as proofs of a 
faulty composition : 

" * In concluding, the Editors would remark that all the 
criticisms in their work are to be considered as autoschediastic, 7 
a much nicer word than extemporaneous, or off-hand, i because, 
as soon as they are finished, they are despatched to the press, 
and that very little opportunity is afforded to them of correct- 
ing those errors, and supplying those defects, which a leisurely 
and careful revision could not fail to discover.' " 

The reader will soon see that the Reviewer has very little 
reason to pride himself about these three notable discoveries, 
and spread his feathers like a proud peacock. Etym. M. 749' : 
Tuwv, 7ro0£v ; naga. to reivsw tyjv ovgotv to yotq Zppov hvct£gvv6f/,evov TOO 
katUTOV ?caAAs», toI; dgaxrj ty]V ovgoiv e%U7rXouv ccjzo^si'x.vvsi. 

1. As to autoschediastic, the Editors are not aware that any 
English authority for the use of the word can be adduced; 
but it is not necessary for their purpose. They are in writing 
English as much at liberty to employ a Greek word expressed 
in English characters, as the Reviewer would be to use the 
Greek word itself in a sentence of similar meaning. It is to 
be noted too, that the Editors in using the word had marked 
it in Italics to shew, that they considered themselves as taking 
a liberty. 

If a Greek word cannot with propriety be used in English^ 
neither can a Greek word be employed in Latin; and if the 
Editors are censurable for doing the former, Dr. Bentley is 
equally culpable for doing the latter. * Nee sermonis purita- 

tem, 



Aristarchus Anti-Blonifieldianus. 11 

tern, nee ordinis lumen, neque rationum vjm et perspicuitatem 
vel in his otvTo<r%s$ioi$ desideres." Bentl. Prasf. ad Horat. 

Autoschediastic is as good a word in English, as H. Stephens' 
coinage, bellicosztas, is in Latin: — " Videtur ou^y pro Forti- 
tudine et bellicositate, ut ita dicam, poni in hoc Poetae cujus- 
dam loco." Thes. This great man could not here say, as in 
the Rhopalic verse, 

Rem tibi confeci, doctissime, dulcisonoram f. 
The Reviewer perhaps has the vanity to think that, like Dr 
Wilkins, he has discovered the only philosophical language? 
that the proprieties of speech are to be learned from his lucu- 
brations alone, and the flowers of rhetoric culled from the 
garden of himself as the modern crTM[xv\io<rv\\sxTot§Yis (Aristoph. 
Ran. 95 1.). Like the ^Egyptians, he counts all men barbarians, 
who do not speak his language : Herod. 2, 158. BugSetgovs'Se 

2. As 



f "'PtTxltxos, v, ov, Versus Rhopalicus, Serv. in Centimetro, p. 1826. Rem tibi 
confeci, doctissime, dulcisonoram.-*' Schneider. Lex. Cf. Gesner. Thes. L. L. :— 
* Grammaticis Rhopalicus versus dicitur, qui a monosyllaba voce incipiens grada- 
tim crescit,et poxaXev, i. Herculis clavam, imitatur, ab angusto et tenui in latitu- 
dinem desinens, ut, 

Spes Deusaeternse stationis conciliator. 
Serv. in Centim. 1826. •■ Cum verba, ut sequuntur, per syllabas crescunt, ut, 

Rem tibi concessi, doctissime, dulcisonorem. 
Ita leg., non uteditum, dulcis honorem. Vide Salmas. ad Solin. 942." The Editors, 
on the other hand, affirm that dulcisonorem is a vox nihili, and that confeci must be 
substituted for concessi. In Forcellini Lex. the word rhopalicus does not occur. 

J As beautiful specimens of his eloquence the following may be cited: p. 311. 
" A greater portion of their works : " 320. " In the adoption of dissyllable verbs.' 3 Ibid. 
*' But in etymology they seem to have been wide alrroad." P. 339. " To be pes- 
tered with all the nonsense.'' Ibid. •' And tacks to the end of his book." P. 337. 
"Thrust down iuto a note." P. 344. " Not to have foisted them in under words." 
P. 315. " A bit of bad Greek." So Mr. Blomfield in Mus. Crit. 2, 259. " We 
think that no person can have waded through his Life of Ruhnken without sensa- 
tions of wearisomeness." The three following are samples of a different kind of rhe- 
toric. " Some toiled through the thorny anomalies of grammar, some danced 
after the ignis fatuus of etymology, some expatiated in thejloweiy paths of mytho- 
logical history." Reviewer, p. 304. " Valckenaer, who perhaps had a clearer in- 
sight into the whole of this question than any other scholar, pursued his favourite 
system with the zeal of a partialfriend. Lennep pushed its consequences still far- 
ther ; the learned and excellent Bishop Burges [Burgess] was misled by it, in his 
Appendix to the Misc. Crit. of Dawes, and Everard Scheide, the Editor of Len- 
nep, has gambolled in etymology at a most surprising rate." p. 322. " They all end 
perhaps in u, or they have all a peculiar twist in the head or tail, and therefore, 
says the Editor, as you are curious about one of them, here they are all — walk in, 
Ladies and Gentlemen, and see what you shall see." p. 334. " A Latin version by 
Florens Christianus. It may not be amiss to inform our younger readers, that the 
name of this flourishing Christian was Florent Chretien." Mus. Crit. Cantab. 1, 
113. " To reduce to system and arrangement the contents of these numerous 
wildernesses, and to incorporate them with the marginal and other notes found in 
the printed books, appeared at first a hopeless undertaking." lb. 1, 117. ** Good 

taste, 



12 Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 

G. As to that , the Reviewer has either blindly, or wilfully, or 
from " great haste and inattention," mistaken the sentence of 
the Editors : — " In concluding the Editors would remark that 
all the criticisms in their work are to be considered as autosche- 
diastic, because as soon as they are finished, they are despatch- 
ed to the press, and that very little opportunity is afforded to 



taste, we think, should have induced the Editor to omit some of the verses, which 
are classed under the head of satirical and humorous, as being totally destitute of 
genuine wit and elegance, and more fit to embellish the hazy panes vf a pot-house 
casement, than the cream-coloured hot-pressed pages of the volume before us. n Ibid. 2, 
272. " ' At y afyag ex nota ad Oram Ed. Aid. voluit Burton, quodferri potest.* 
We think this conjecture not only bearable, but certainly true." Edinburgh Review 
of Dr. Butler's jEschylus, No. 38, p. 483. " * Corrige ivruvMo-avrts, rneo periculo. 3 
'Eiruv6i%,uv is a verb transitive, and signifies ' to make flowery,' as in the two pap- 
sages here referred to, Agam. 1667. Soph. El. 45. Eur. Ion. 890. The conjecture, 
therefore, is certainly perilous.^ Ibid. 492. Mr. Romani de Timkowsky, {we give 
his name as we find it, and are nowise accountable for its structure,) in a Commenta- 
tion upon Dithyrambs, published at Moscow in 1806, has a pleasant conceit upon 
the origin of this term, which is also sanctioned by Proclus and the Scholiast on 
Pindar: Ai0V£Xf/.€i>s I Aiovvtros, Tet^a, <ro lita'hvo S-vgKs f&rivoii, rm re tyis (tnrgog "SifAikns, 
jut) ruvf/riguv rov LUs (A/oj). The same Mr. Timkowsky says that the word was 
undoubtedly invented by some man when he was drunk : if this be true, it might 
have been intended for At'l'3-glapGos, or Aiotvtu Sglctftgos, or any other 9-^lx/u,Sos : for 
there is no saying to what lengths the inventor might unwittingly have gone in clip' 
ping the standard Greek." Mus. Crit. 5, 7 1 . The Editors beg leave to contrast Mr. Blom- 
fbld's ungenerous sneer at Mr. Timkowsky's name with that on Mr. Mitscherlich 
in the Review of the Gr. Thes. p. 338. "If Matthiae, and the gentleman with ten \iiine~\ 
consonants in his name, did right in ejecting a spurious verse from the Hymn to 
Ceres, the Editors did wrong in quoting it as an authority." But, in the name of 
sober sense, is this reflection on the consonants in a name to be tolerated ? " If we 
had been present at the burning of Ptolemy's "¥0%%* 'letr^itot, we should have 
wished to rescue from the flames, amongst other books, the work of Duris n<g« T^«- 
ycohittt, and that of Aristocles Tlifi Xoguv, from which we could probably have com- 
piled a portable volume, for an accompaniment to Mr. Ralph Wewitxer's Theatric 
cal Pockel-Buok. But, at present, since we have only a few scattered scraps of in- 
formation on the subject, the above Memoir on some peculiarities of the Greek 
Opera may not be without its use, particularly as they have quite escaped the no- 
tice of Mr. John Weaver, in his ' Essay towards an History of Dancing, dedicated to a 
gentleman, who has very eminently adorned and dignified the art, Mr. Calverly, at his 
htuse in Queen Square, St. And" ew's, Hollom. 1 " Mus. Crit. 5, 83. " There is a dis- 
mally tedious note on (Suppl.) 130. in which a conjecture or two is set forth in the 
form of a query. Nee tamen placet, says Dr. Butler, which observation, with re- 
gard to ourselves, is strictly true." Edinburgh Review of Dr. Butler's JEschylus, 
No. 30. p. 318. " Pulcerrime, says Mr. B., Interpres Gallicus,Otf se repand, ame- 
nee par Typhon, l'eaudu Nil. This may be beautiful, and it is new, but it is not 
true." Ibid. '* Mr. Muller's remarks on the first part of the Suppl. are unusually 
facetious. We were somewhat startled at his expression, Curiosam Apidis histo- 
rian, the curious History of Apis. This we conceive to be curious Latin at all' 
events." Ibid. 321. 

The Editors " are aware that" they " have to apologize to" their "readers 
for wasting so much valuable paper upon these uninteresting extracts; but" they 
" were desirous of giving one or two specimens, taken at random from the first 
page, which'' they "turned over, of the enormous rate, at which the Editor" of 
the Quarterly Review '•' is trifling with the time and money of t\\e" purchasers. 
See the Reviewer, p. 339. 

them 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. \ 3 

them of correcting those errors, and supplying those defects, 
which a leisurely and careful revision could not -fail to discover." 
Construing the passage, as the Reviewer chose to do, that is 
superfluous ; but understood as the Editors intended it, it is in- 
dispensably necessary. 1 . The Editors remark that the criti- 
cisms are autoschediastic, because despatched to the press as 
soon as they are finished : 2. That very little opportunity (in 
reading the proofs) is allowed to them of correcting errors, or 
supplying defects. 

3. Before the Reviewer ventured to condemn the word 
leisurely, " which a leisurely and careful revision could not 
fail to discover," he should have consulted what the enlightened 
JVir. Payne Knight (Essay on Taste p. 26 1. third Edison) ele- 
gantly calls the remembrancer of a Scholar, and the oracle of 
a Dunce, his Dictionary f. He would there have found the 
following examples : 

" Leisurely, adj. from Leisure, Not hasty, Deliberate, Done without 
hurry. 

He was the wretchedest thing, when he was young, 

So long a growing, and so leisurely, 

That, if the rule be true, he should be gracious. 

Shakespeare. 

' The Earl of Warwick, with a handful of men, fired Leith and Edin- 
burgh, and returned by a leisurely march. 

Hayward. 

The bridge is human life ; upon a leisurely survey of it, I found that 
it consisted of threescore and ten intire arches. — Addison." 

Johnson's Dictionary. 

The reader will observe that Addison has united leisurely 
to survey, just as the Editors have done. 

Before the Editors leave this topic, they must point the atten- 
tion of the reader to " a most extraordinary apology," of the 
Reviewer (p. 340. and 341.) for smuggling into the English 
language a contraband word under the colours of the Editors 
themselves. Because the Editors have in one solitary instance 
used the term autoschediastic, therefore, indirectly argues the 
Reviewer p. 334., they would employ the word dissertate on 



f " De altera vero Kttno, Flagrabas prae aniore et misericordia, eura (Bentl.) ut 
videtur, destituerunt, qua sola fere in Gracis consulebat, oracula, Indices et Lexica." 
Dawes Misc. Crit. 112. Kidd. 

another 



14 Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianns. 

another occasion; which in point of logic is going beyond 
Aristotle himself. The Reviewer's words are these : — " If, for 
instance, Mr. Schaefer or Mr. Boissonade, very learned and ex- 
cellent men, (the former of whom has a strange trick of writing 
long notes in Indexes,) happen to have ELUCUBRATED," 
[" a much nicer word than" written, see Reviewer p. 340.] 
" for their own satisfaction a disquisition upon some particular 
word, or, as the learned Editor would say, to have dissertated 
upon it." Again p. 338. " But we would ask the most par- 
tial admirer of dissertating." If the Editors can form any 
judgment, though, in the opinion of the Reviewer, they are 
marvellously defective in that useful quality, the Reviewer was 
himself much more likely to use the word dissertate than the 
Editors. They have just exhibited him using the word elucu- 
brate, and in p. 307. they read, " To the skilful metrician.'* 
Again in p. 334. " Several dissertatory columns," 330. " To 
reserve the enucleation of hard words," p. 334. " All this 
dilatation of bulk." 

They, who compare the above-mentioned terms used by the 
Reviewer with terms used by Mr. Blomfield, will see a urther 
reason for considering the Reviewer and Mr. Blomfield to be 
completely identified. "Bones could not be made to do by 
any process of desiccation" Mus. Crit. 2, 269- " Mr. Willet 
perpetrates the following stupendous anachronism," 6, 322. 
" The Recreator has too much cause to look forward to the 
fulfilment of his apprehensions." Quarterly Review of Prof. 
Monk's Hippolytus, No. XV. p. 215. " Mr. Hermann, in his 
Treatise on Greek Grammar p. 59- excogitates another form." 
Ibid. 226. " It appears to us that the flowers of rhetoric are 
misplaced in discussions on the position of an accent, the luxa- 
tion ofadochmiac, or the hallucination of some sinful copyist." 
Ibid. 227- " An indiscriminate coacervation of all that has 
been expressly written upon Aeschylus." Edinburgh Review 
of Dr. Butler's Aeschylus, No. 38, p. 505. " The exceeding 
annoyance and want of sleep, occasioned at night by the vexa- 
tious morsitation and stridulous buzzing of that nimble little in- 
sect, which the Greeks called xwvooty or e^7r)g, and Englishmen 
a gnat." Ibid. 507. " The chance of this is injimtesimally 
small." Ibid. 494. 

In p. 331. the Reviewer thus cites a passage from a Paper 
written by the Editors in Classical Journal, No. xix. : — " i Their 
first intention was only to incorporate into the Thes.% an elegant 
abbreviation, ' those words, with which H. Stephens met alter 
the completion of the work, and which he has thrown into his 

Index, 



Aristarchus Anti-Blojnfieldianus. 15 

Index, to insert in the Thes. Scott's Appendix, and to verify the 
quotations. But they mean to extend their plan, because they 
entertain little doubt of the success of their undertaking/ i. e. 
in a pecuniary point of view." 

The reader will not fail to notice the malignity of the Re- 
viewer in putting such a construction on the Editors' words, as 
is calculated to represent them to be persons actuated more by 
motives of base lucre, than by an honourable desire at once 
to establish a fair character for learning, and to promote the 
cause and interests of Greek literature. 

It is not necessary for the Editors to dwell on this topic. 
Their Subscribers, they have no doubt, have long been well 
satisfied that the Editors neither had, nor could have had any 
mercenary views, because, had they been so disposed, it would 
have been their interest to take less pains with the work and 
proceed much quicker in its publication. 

As to the abbreviation of Thes. for Thesaurus, which the 
Reviewer ironically calls elegant, the Editors cannot readily 
see what occasion there was in a plain Advertisement to em- 
ploy " flowers of rhetoric," which he has on another occasion 
condemned as " misplaced" even " in critical annotations ;" 
nor what occasion there was in a mere matter of common place 
" to waste much valuable paper" by writing at full length a 
word, which in its abridged form was sufficiently intelligible to 
all ; nor what liberality there was in the spirit, nor what wit in 
the language of the Reviewer, who in p. 334. thus renews his 
" trifling objection" (p. 340.) : — " Away it goes to the Aedes 
Valpianae, in Tooke's Court, and thence into the Thes. whole 
and entire." It is very easy to turn any thing of this kind into 
ridicule. For their own parts the Editors cannot perceive, (but 
then according to the Reviewer they are lamentably deficient 
in "judgment,") what ridicule can properly be attached to them 
for abbreviating Thesaurus into Thes., and not as properly be 
attached to Mr. Blomfield, who in the Museum Criticuin 4, 
43Q, and in the Addenda to the Notes on Aesch. Agam. 655, 
" elegantly," no doubt, writes Mas. Crit., and in the Glossary, 
on Aesch. Agam. 655., Misc. Obs. and who in the Edinburgh 
Review of Dr. Butler's Aeschylus, No. 38. p. 504. for Seven 
against Thebes, writes Theb. tit., p. 496. Theb. and then, with 
admirable " inconstancy in the abbreviations" of titles of 
books, p. 506. writes Seven ag. Th., and in the same page S. ag. 
Th. and in p. 504. S. ag. Theb. ; and to Mr. Kidd, who in his 
Edition of Dawes's Miscellanea Critica pp. 437. 546. substi- 
tutes Aesch. Septheb. for Septem ad Thebas ; and to Professor 
Boissonade, who ad Pseudo-Herodian. Partitt. 59- writes 

Septem 



16 Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 

Septem Theb. ; or to Prof. Hermann, who ad Soph: El. 19' 
writes Maltby ad Morell. Thes. p. 405. 

A curious specimen of the Reviewer's implacable hostility 
to the Editors of the New Gr. Thes. occurs in p. 303., where 
he actually steps aside to attack a work quite unconnected in- 
deed with the Thesaurus, but proceeding from the press of one 
of its Editors, Mr. Valpy ; — " And if we are to estimate the 
present state of ancient learning in this country by the gross 
and tangible arithmetic of the pounds, shillings, and pence, 
subscribed for Delphin, Regent, and Variorum Classics, we 
shall be led to form a very exalted notion of the erudition of 
the age in which we live." The following Note is subjoined : — 
" We allude to a precious scheme of Mr. Valpy's, now in 
progress, of re-publishing the very worst Edition of the Latin 
Classics. This indefatigable and zealous printer does not 
seem to have had the remotest idea, that the value of the ori- 
ginal Delphin Editions consisted almost entirely in their scar- 
city ; a merit, which his own publication of course cannot 
possess." 

The Editors must ever contend both against the unfair 
dealing of the Reviewer, who has endeavoured to confound 
the present Delphin " scheme" with that exploded " scheme," 
which Mr. Blomfield had himself condemned on another 
occasion, (Mus. Crit. 3, 41 6.) and against that foul malignity, 
which led the Reviewer to connect an attack on the Delphin 
" scheme" with an attack on the New Greek Thesaurus, and 
which is to be traced to the simple fact that the printer and the 
proprietor of the Delphin Classics is one and the same person 
with the printer and the proprietor of the New Gr. Thes. It 
was not sufficient for the Reviewer to pour " all the vials" of 
his spite on the latter work — he " thought nothing gained," till 
he had also stabbed the reputation of the former work by 
representing it to be, zohat it is not in point of fact, and what 
it does not profess to be, a mere reprint of the Delphin Classics. 
The Prospectus is now lying before the Editors of the New 
Gr. Thes. ; and as it has been largely advertised in the News- 
papers, in the Magazines, in the periodical Reviews, and from 
time to time in the ClassicalJournal, they think the supposition to 
be wholly untenable, that the Reviewer was not well acquainted 
with the contents of the Prospectus f, of which the words are 

these : — 



f The fact will be sufficiently apparent to the reader, if he attentively consi- 
ders the fol lowing words, which occur in the previous page of the Review, viz. 
p. 302. : — " The art of puffing was then but little understood or practised. Such 
a thing as a Prospectus was never heard of j there were none of those convenient 

vehicles 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianm. 17 



these: — " New and CORRECTED EDITION of the Delphin 
Classics, with the VARIORUM NOTES, intitled the Regent's 
Edition, edited and printed by A. J. Valpy, A.M. late Fellow 
of Pembroke College, Oxford.' — The best Text will be 
used, and not the Delphin. The Delphin Notes, and 
Interpretatio, and the Variorum Readings, will be placed under 
the Text ; and the Notes in the best Variorum Edition will be 
printed at the end of each Author. The best Indices will be 
adopted, and carefully collated with the Text to remove the 
present numerous faults in the References. The Reference 
will be to the Book and Chapter, and not to the Page, by which 
means the same Index will apply to all other Editions. The 
Literaria Notitia from the Bipont Editions, continued 
to the present time, will be added to each Author. Thus 
will be incorporated, as it were, the Delphin, the Bipont, and 
the Variorum Editions." 

The Editors of the Gr. Thes. leave to the Reviewer " the 
delightful task" of reconciling his statement with the fact, 
while they proceed to comment on another part of the Review, 
p. 340, where the reader will find a statement quite as un- 
founded and as malicious, as the one just dismissed : — 

" We are not disposed to enter at length into a considera- 
tion of the original criticisms, w T hich the Editors have inserted ; 
but we cannot forbear from noticing the most extraordinary 
confession, which they have made, in a defence of themselves 
against the remarks of Mr. Hermann, who has intermixed a 
few trivial objections, extorted from him by a sense 
of decency, amongst several pages of the most fulsome 
and unsupported (although, we doubt not, unsought,) 
panegyric. " Then the following Note appears at the foot 
of the page : — " Mr. Hermann and his School never miss 
an opportunity of lavishing their censure on Porson, 
and on those english scholars, whom they facetiously 

ENOUGH TERM PoVSOlis disciples ; WHILE, ON THE OTHER HAND, 

it is a sufficient title to their esteem to flatter the 
German Critics at the expense of the English." 

The Editors believe that the public will agree with them in 
thinking that this is one of the most scandalous paragraphs, which 
ever appeared in any Review. t( Hominem audacem maletn- 



vehicles of literary information, which Mr, Murray and his brethren append to the 
covers of their periodical publications, by which the intelligence of forthcoming 
mirks is dispersed, with incredible swiftness, over every partof the reading world." 
To talk of "vehicles being appended to the covers of bvojfs" is " a most extraordi- 
nary" novelty of expression. 

c cumque> 



18 Aristdrchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

cumque, et ultra quod fcrri potest, superbientem, frangendum 
judicavi, atque illi soli uegata in reliquos danda venia, suo sibi 
telo, conviciis nempe, quando adhuc mollioribus insanabile se 
praebuit, pruriginosum maledicendi ingenium impetendum. 
Nempe ut sciat, quoties de se tarn insolenter glorietur, alios 
autem contemptui habeat, non defuturum alicunde vindicem, et 
quod in aliorum fecerit, id in sua etiam scripta eventurum." 
K. Johnson. Praef. ad Aristarchum Anti-Ben tleianum p. viii. 

The serious charges, here made in the most unqualified man- 
ner against Prof. H ermann, are six in number. 

1 . That the praises, which he has in his Review liberally 
bestowed on the New Gr. Thes., are " most fulsome and un- 
supported, although, the Reviewer doubts not, unbought 
panegyric :" 

£. That " he has intermixed a few trivial objections :" 

3. That those " objections were extorted from him by a 
sense of decency :" 

4. That " he and his School never miss an opportunity of 
lavishing their censure on Porson" and on his English followers : 

5. That those followers u are facetiously enough termed by 
him and his School Porson's disciples :" 

6. That " it is a sufficient title to their esteem to flatter the 
German critics at the expense of the English." 

1. As to the first charge against Prof. Hermann, that he has 
in his Notice of the New Gr. Thes., which was inserted in the 
35th No. of the Classical Journal, employed "several pages" 
to heap on the Editors " most fulsome and unsupported, al- 
though, as the Reviewer thinks, unbought panegyric," the 
Editors will first adduce all the matter of that " panegyric," 
and then compare it with the praises bestowed on the Editors 
by the Reviewer himself: — • 

" Ac de eo quidem inter omnes convenire putamus, Editores 
doctissimos Thesauri Stephaniani tantam et in locupletando hoc 
libro industriam, et in expoliendo diligentiam adhibere, ut inde 
non possit non summa ad studia Grascarum litterarum utilitas 
redundare, Cujus meriti quo insignior est magnitudo, quoque 
plus laboris in ilia opera exantlandum est, tanto certius confidi- 
mus, neminem fore, quin ex animo gratias, quanta? maxima? 
sint, agendas his viris censeat. Quam infiniti enim laboris sit, 
exempla ab H. Stephano citata exquirere, copias a compluribus 
hominibus doctis congestas disponere, scriptores omnis generis 
eorumque interpretes inspicere, in singulis locis vocabulisque, 
quae dubia atque ambigua sunt,ponderare, postremo ex his omni- 
bus vera eruere, id is demum recte aestimaverit, qui non dicam 
ipse similis opera? periculum fecerit, sed vel unam alteramve 

paginam 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 19 

paginam hujus Novi Thesauri ita pertractaverit, ut, quae ibi ex- 
posita sunt, omnia accurate pervestigaret. Et haec quidem tarn 
laboriosa opera quemadmodum Editoribus Thesauri non potest 
non summae laudi esse, ita nobis excusationi erit, si in sententia 
de hoc libro dicenda tantum hie illic aliquid delibabimus." 

u Quum ad laudandum infinita suppetat materia, ut comme- 
morandis, quae nobis probantur, finem non essemus inventuri : 
malumus, quod et utilius et gratius fore lectoribus speramus, ea 
tantum aflferre, in quibus nonnihil ab Editoribus doctissimis dis- 
sentimus." 

" Debebat autem ad ha3c prohodierno statu philologiae hoc 
quintum accedere, utin singulis vocabulis etiam viri docti, qui 
passim in scriptis suis ea explicuissent, vel aliquid, quod operse 
pretium esset, de iis protulissent, diligenter commemorarentur, 
quo, quae in ipso Lexico locum non invenirent, lectores, unde pe- 
tere deberent, possent cognoscere. Et hac quidem in re Editores 
doctissimi non sunt passi diligentiam suam desiderari." 

" Sed dicendum iam est de ipsis incrementis, quibus locuple- 
tari hie Thesaurus coeptus est. Quorum tarn infinita copia est, 
eaque tam accurate tractata, ut incredibilem Editorum indu- 
striam ac diligentiam non solum gratissimo animo agnoscamus, 
sed maxime etiam admiremur. Et primo praeter ea, quae Edi- 
tores ipsi congesserant, opibus eos usos esse ex schedula tertio 
Fasciculo adjecta cognoscimus Schaeferi,nostratis, cujus immen- 
sas copias ipsi vidimus ; deinde Boissonadii, Schweighaeuseri, 
Coraii, Kallii ; turn adnotationibus ad Scapulam MSS. Ruhn- 
kenii, Valckenarii, Brunckii, et ad Hederici Lexicon Wakefieldii, 
et Routhii ; denique non exiguis collectaneis Seageri, aliorum- 
que Britannorum." 

" Videamus nunc de eo, quod caput est, de incrementis ip- 
sis, quibus in nova Editione auctus est Thesaurus. Ac quid 
faciendum hac in parte merit Editoribus, non potest ambiguum 
esse ; indicandum erat,exempla a Stephano citata quibus libro- 
rum capitibus, paginis, versibus exstarent ; corrigendum, quod 
ille minus recte dixisset ; explicandum uberius, ubi ille pro rei 
conditione justo brevior fuisset ; supplendum, quidquid vocabu- 
lorum vel fugisset Stephanum vel latuisset • adnotandum deni- 
que, qui viri docti de quibusque verbis hie illic disputavissent. 
Haec vero omnia facta sunt ab Editoribus egregie, et sic, ut dif- 
ficilius omissum ab iis quidquam, quam allata multa, quae po- 
tuerint omitti, reperias." 

" Raro, quamvis in summa Editorum diligentia, aliquid omis- 
sum videas." 

"Tertium supra illud commemoravimus, quod multa aliis 
locis servanda fuerint. Hoc vero est, in quo omnino nobis vi~ 

C 2 demus 



20 Arhtarchus AtUi-Blomfieldianus. 

demus a dpctissimorum Editorum sententia discedendum esse. 
Nam etsi gratissimi agnoscimus incredibilem operam, qua tara 
immensam utilissimarum rcrum copiam congesserunt, tamen, 
quamvis ilia bona, immo haud raro egregia sint, permagnam 
partem adnotationum ab his, in quibus leguntur locis, alienissi- 
mam esse contendimus." 

"Nonhasc sic diximus, quasi vitio verteremus Editoribus 
praestantissimis, quod versus illos non emendaverint. Nam quis 
adco iniquus, ac potius insanus sit, utin libro, qui totus refertus 
est citationibus scriptorum, locos omnes, qui afferuntur, etiam 
emendari postulet? Imrao emendationi veterum scriptorum in 
hac Thesauri editione abunde et multo magis, quam exspectari 
licebat, satisfactum esse gaudemus, meritoque maximas agimus 
Editoribus gratias, quod plerumque non in afferendis testimoniis 
acquieverunt, sed ea accuratius etiam expendenda putarunt. 
Quo fieri non potest, quin, qui utentur hoc Thesauro, plurimis 
in rebus mirifice se adiuvari sentiant. Quod si hie illic aliquid 
est emendationis, quod fugerit viros egregios, tantum abest, ut 
id mirum in tanta rerum et copia et varietate et difficultate vi- 
deri possit, ut ilia potius admirari debeamus, qua& summa cura, 
summoque studio ab iis congesta, disputata, explanata, ad liqui- 
dum perdocta sunt. Et quis nescit, ssepissime accidere, ut emen- 
dationes, in quas quemvis putes incidere debere, sero demum 
uni in mentem veniant ? 

" Sed decet iam finem facere scribendi. Et quern admodum 
non dubitamus, quin Editores prsestantissimi, maximeque, cuius 
prascipuam in edendo hoc Thesauro operam esse accepimus, 
doctissimus Barkerus, et gratiam ab omnibus, qui litteras Gra3- 
cas tractant, summam inierint, et seternam tam egregio opere 
condendo laudem sibi parituri sint, ita optamus ex animo, ut et 
valetudo ac vires iis ad sustinendos tantoslabores suppetant, et 
quasvis alias obtingant ad perflciendam hanc utilissimi libri edi- 
tionem commoditates atque opportunitates." 

Here is the sum total of that "most fulsome and unsupported 
panegyric," of which the Reviewer speaks. The statement of the 
Reviewer, that it consists of " several pages," is a direct false- 
hood. The Review of the New Gr. Thes. by Prof. Hermann 
fills just 24 pages in the Classical Journal, and that part of it, 
which chaunts the praises of the Thes., in point of fact would 
not occupy three pages of the Class. Journ., if it were all. col- 
lected together. The reader will observe not only that the Re- 
viewer's statement is absolutely untrue, but that it must have 
been designedly made so, for the purposes of his malignity to~ 
wards the Thesaurus and its Editors. It was in vain for the Re- 
viewer to attack the Thes., to start objection after objection to 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfteldianus. 21 

its plan, to its execution, to all its parts, and to heap Pelion upon 
Ossa, unless he could destroy the value of Professor Hermann's 
praises by representing them to be " most fulsome and unsup- 
ported," and by furnishing an apparent proof of the fact in the 
assertion that those praises were made to extend through " se- 
veral pages." 

Whether those praises are " most fulsome," is a question, 
which must be decided by more impartial judges and more ho- 
nourable men, than the Reviewer. Such judges and such men 
have delivered their testimony, which may be seen in the Adver- 
tisement, prefixed by the Editors to the 9th Number of their 
Work. In addition to those testimonials, the Editors produce 
the following :- — 

" Li brum, qui nunc tibi traditur in manus, ab editore multo 
doctiore ipse teolim expectare jusseram, humanissime lector; a 
Barkero, nempe, viro eruditissimo et in Grammaticoi um Graeco- 
rum lectione exercitatissimo, qui ilium egregia sane opera illu- 
stravisset, si, quod primum destinaverat, potuisset perfieere. Ete- 
nim Herodiani, ut videtur quidem, nOmine ac fama captus, hos 
'EmpsgKrpovs e Codd. Reg. Par. describi sibi curaverat, quos a 
tenebns ac situ vindicaret, et doctis hominibus proponeret. Sed 
cum Thesauri Gr. Stephaniani nova Editio, opus immensum, 
ingens, nihil Barkero fere relinquat otii, jacebat Herodianus 
expectans, si quis forsan ilium tolleret." Boissonadii Prsef. ad 
Pseudo-Herodiani Partitt. 

It is worthy of remark, that, while the Reviewer can see in 
the Gr. Thes. nothing useful, 

(" those optics are but dim, 
" That tell you so," Cow iter's Table Talk.) 

Prof. Boissonade, in the work just cited, has found much for his 
purpose : (see p. 126. twice : p. 143. " De h. v., quam vulgo 
scribunt per i, ^iX^njs, cf. Barkerus, vir doctiss. in Lexico Vo- 
cum peregr. ante Steph. Thes. Nov. Ed. Lond. p. CCCLXVI. 
et in Classica EphemerideT. 15. p. 216.": pp. 240. 283.-285.: 
p. 294. " Vide nunc omnino Thesauri H. Stephani Editionem 
Londinensem p. 512. extr.": p. 295. " De loco Porphyrii 
vide omnino Thesaurum H. Stephani Londinensis Editionis 
T. 1 . p. 519" : and p. 298.) and that, while Mr. Blomfield has 
never on any occasion found any thing in Mr. Barker's compo- 
sitions worth his notice, this learned and candid foreigner has 
had frequent occasion to quote them in this book : see pp. 88. 
126. 134. : p. 254. " T« $su, adtulit Barkerus in Amoenitati- 
bus Criticis amoenissimis, Ephemeridi Classical T. 16. p. 109- 
insertis, adverbium «§«as illustraturus, quern vide:" p. 298. 

" Restitutio 



22 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

" Restitutio vocis otyysiw$ov$ pro ayysAjwSouj, venit in menteni 
et Barkero, viro doctissimo et amicissimo." While Mr. Blom- 
field could perceive, in what Mr, Barker has written on the sub- 
ject of Aeschylus, nothing but worthless weeds, Professor Her- 
mann, who is labouring in the same field with Mr. Blomfield, 
but who is actuated by no spirit of party, has found good 
fruit : 

" E. H. Barkero 
Viro clarissimo 

S. P. D. 
G. Hermannus. 
" Diarii Classici copiam mihi facit amicus, qui eum librum pos- 
sidet. In quo quag a te, eruditissime Barkere, ad Aeschylum 
collatasunt, ita mihi placuerunt, ut ad ea nolim ilia comparari, 
qu33 alii in eodemlibro protulerunt, in quibus, (perlustravi autem 
hue usque octo prima volumina,) perpauca me invenisse fateor, 
quae aliquid momenti habere viderentur. Vellem mehercule 
omnes ita sentirent, uti te sentire video, interpretandos prius, 
quam corrigendos esse scriptores ; quo ne sana corrigerentur, 
intacta autem relinquerentur, qua3 male affecta sunt. 

" Caeterum ita existima, metui studiosissimum esse, tequeex 
animo diligere. Vale. D. Lipsias d. ix. Martii 1817." 

The Editors have in the testimonials principally confined 
themselves to foreign scholars, because the scholars of their own 
country might be considered as " partial friends." But they 
could appeal to many learned and excellent men in this country, 
who have passed their general approbation on the work, though 
they may not have approved of every part. 

The celebrated Richard Johnson, in the Preface to his Ari- 
starchus Anti-Bentleianus, charges the celebrated Richard 
Bentley with publishing some epistolary encomiums, which he 
had received from his friends, (" Cum amicorum litems, quibus 
ipse laudatur, publicare sustineat,") and the Reviewer may, if 
he pleases, charge the Editors with the same offence. But self- 
praise is universally allowed to be then perfectly proper, when it; 
is employed for the purpose of refuting calumny. 

The Editors ask with what grace the Reviewer can call Her- 
mann's praises of the New Gr. Thes. " most fulsome," when Mr. 
Blomfield has on several occasions, which will be hereafter spe- 
cified, scattered the most profuse praise on Dr, Maltby's Thes. 
Gr. Poes. ? 

But, says the Reviewer, Hermann's praises of the New Gr. 
Thes. are " unsupported ;" and should the Editors even admit 
this to be true, still they charge the Reviewer with an evil in- 
tention in saying so, because, while he knew that Hermann has 

assigned 



Aristarchus Anti-~Blomfieldianus. 23 

assigned a satisfactory reason for not stating at length the grounds 
for his praises -f, (" Etenim, quum ad laudandum infinita sup- 
petat materia, ut commemorandis, quae nobis probantur, finem 
non essemus inventuri, maltjmus, quod et utilius et gratius 

FORE LECTORI BUS SPERAMUS, EA TANTUM AFFERRE, IN QUIBUS 

nonnihil ab Editoribus doctissimjs dissentimus,") he knew 
that his readers must interpret the word " unsupported " to 
mean, that the Professor had praised the work beyond its deserts — 
that he neither had supported, nor could support his praise 
by adequate quotations from it. If the Reviewer will take the 
trouble of applying to a learned friend of his in the University 
of Cambridge, he will have the same satisfaction, which one of 
the Editors, during a short conversation, himself enjoyed, of 
hearing that distinguished scholar say, that in his judgment 
Hermann's Review of the New Gr, Thes. was perfectly fair. 

It now remains for the Editors to collect those praises of them- 
selves and their Work, which are contained in the Review, that 
the curious reader may contrast them with the above recited 
praises from the pen of Hermann, and notice " the most extra- 
ordinary " fact, that the eulogium of the Reviewer, as far it goes, 
perfectly tallies with the " panegyric " of Hermann, which the Re- 
viewer pronounces to be " most fulsome and unsupported : " — ■ 
P. 324. " Another defect of the Thesaurus, and it is only sur- 
prising that it did not exist in a still greater degree, is the absence 
of a vast number of words, which are found in various writers, 
in the Tragedians, in the Fragments of the Poets, the Antholo- 
gia, the Platonists, the Erotic Writers, the Scholiasts, the Gram- 
marians, and other Neoteric Authors. For this defect a remedy 
has been in part provided by the labours of Scott, Suicer, Jen- 
sius, and others ; and amongst later Scholars by Bast, Schaefer, 
Schweighaeuser, Boissonade, and many more, whose Papers 
the present publishers have procured at a considerable expence, 
besides the voluntary contributions of several laborious scholars. 
In this respect, indeed, it is probable that the present republica- 
tion will leave little to be desired. In fact, we are not sure that 
the deluge of new words will not be quite overwhelming." 

P. 326. " A still further accession of utility was to be ob- 
tained by referring, under particular words, to the writings of 
modern critics and philologists, who have illustrated their mean- 
ings or properties. In this respect the present Editors have been 

•f* Hermann has acted precisely in the same way in the Review of Elmsley's 
Medea. ** Afferemus autem talia potissimum, in quibus dissentimus ab Editoie 
clarissimo, non quo reprehendere virum, quem maximi facimus, sed quia census 
ram, quae nihil aliud quam liber iste, cuius ea censura est, contineat; inutilem 
esse existimamus." Classical Journal 38, 210. 

eminently 



24 Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 

eminently diligent, and leave little to be desired. It is but jus- 
tice to them to observe, that they have displayed a most extensive 
reading, and much Curious research. Scarcely any sources of 
information are open, to zohich they have not had recourse ; and 
we are therefore the more inclined to regret, that they have al- 
lowed themselves so little time for the thorough digestion and ju- 
dicious arrangement of their materials." 

P. 328. " We are far, however, from being disposed to judge 
the conductors of the present work with severity [!!!]. The task, 
which they have undertaken, is a most difficult one, requiring a 
union of learning, sagacity, and judgment, which is of very rare 
occurrence. To their multifarious reading, and diligence in re- 
search, we are most ready to do justice ; audjreely acknowledge, 
that in point of quantity very little, which is requisite to the il- 
lustration of the Greek language, is omitted in the present Edi- 
tion of the Thesaurus" 

P. 346. " All this is the more to be regretted, because the 
Editors are by no means wanting in erudition, nor deficient in 
materials for this great undertaking ; these, indeed, they possess 
in such abundance, that with an ordinary share of discretion and 
judgment and patience, they might have constructed a Thesau- 
rus, which should [would] have been, what the present never 
can be, a complete and systematic body of philology, a well-fur- 
nished storehouse of sound criticism, and of valuable informa- 
tion upon every subject connected with Greek literature." 

P. 347- " The present editors have spared no expense; their 
research has been indefatigable ; but they should have taken time 
and advice." 

P. 348. " The execution of the work, in point of typography, 
is upon the whole deserving of praise ; and does credit to Mr. 
Valpy's accuracy, and to the care of the corrector. The printing 
from so many different MSS. and scraps of paper must be very 
trying to the patience and skill of the compositor and reviser." 

P. 348. " In taking leave of the Editors of this enlarged The- 
saurus, we once more assure them, that we have great respect 
for their zeal, perseverance and research, but little or none for 
their judgment, or taste." 

The Editors will elsewhere point out the coincidence between 
-the Reviewer and Hermann, in respect to what the former 
tamely calls " a commendable impartiality (of the Editors) in 
their quotations from contemporary scholars." 

The Editors now proceed to discuss the second and third 

arges, which the Reviewer has brought against Hermann : — 

2, 3. That " he has intermixed a few trivial objections, ex- 
torted FROM HIM BY A SENSE OF DECENCY." 

On 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 25 

On the " decency" of this assertion, which is not and cannot 
be supported by fact, the Editors need make no comment. But 
the falshood and the malignity of the assertion are points, which 
the Editors will now determine, by producing the " objections" 
themselves, by thus showing that they are not " trivial," by 
proving that they are the very "objections" urged by the Re- 
viewer himself, and by demonstrating that those "objections" 
cannot be "trivial" in the case of Hermann, and the reverse in 
the case of the Reviewer himself. 

" Ac non nihil mirati sumus, quid fuerit> quod Editores, quum 
in Epistola ad Lectorem, quam interim Prsefationis loco esse vo- 
luerunt, de multis aliis rebus dicerent, de ea, quae primaria erat, 
nihil plane dixerint, nisi hoc, noluisse se in ipso Stephani libro 
quidquam mutare. Neque alibi quidquam de ea ratione, qua 
edituri essent nunc Thesaurum, ab iis scriptum accepimus, nisi, 
quod a viris inter populares suos et ap. exteros litterarum Grse- 
carum scientia claris, ut communicarent secum, si quid habe- 
rent, quod esset augendo illi libro, petierunt. Ex quo aliquid 
dubitationis nobis subnatum esse fatemur, an iis cupiditas dc- 
ctorum,maturari Editionem flagitantium,tempus praeciderit, quo 
opus erat ad tantum opus ita et instituendum et perficiendum, 
ut illud ex omni parte consummatissimum iudicari posset. Ac 
vellemus quidem fecissent viri prasstantissimi, quod fieri par erat 
in paranda Editione operis immortalis, quae ipsa aeternum huius 
aevi monumentum extitura esset : exposuissent prius accurate de 
universa ratione, quam sibi sequendam putarent, omnesque ha- 
rum litterarum peritos invitassent, ut suam quisque de ea sen- 
tentiam in medium afferret, quo deinde id, quod optimum visum 
esset, et, si non omnium, certe plerorumque assensu comproba- 
tum, adscisceretur atque effectum daretur." Hermann. 

" It seems not a little surprizing, that, before entering upon a 
work of such magnitude and importance, the Editors did not 
submit to the learned world a tolerably exact outline of the plan, 
which they intended to pursue, together with a specimen of its 
execution. Had that been done, we venture to say that such 
advice would have been given them from various quarters, as 
would have prevented their embarking upon an ocean, which 
seems to be without a shore, and themselves 

Like Whiston, wanting pyx or stars." 

Reviewer, p. 332. - 

" To this end it was undoubtedly their duty to mark out for 
themselves a well defined and intelligible plan of proceeding ; to 
submit it to the learned world for their approbation or correc- 
tion, 



$6 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

tion, with a specimen of the execution ; to collect their mate- 
rials beforehand." Ibid. 346. 

" The present Editors have spared no expense ; their research 
has been indefatigable, and their own reading very extensive ; 
but they should have taken time and advice." Ibid. 347. 

The plan, which at the very outset of the undertaking the 
Editors adopted, was this. A private letter was sent by Mr. 
Valpy to all the scholars in England, with whose names he was 
acquainted, informing them that he intended to reprint in Num- 
bers the Greek Thesaurus of H. Stephens, soliciting their sub- 
scription, their advice, and their assistance. Some few remarks 
were made by several of those persons, to whom the letter was 
sent, but nothing very material was elicited from them. After 
the lapse of some time, one of the Editors was invited to Dr. 
Parr's house at Hatton, for the purpose of conferring with him 
on the subject, went thither, met Dr. Butler, the Head- Mas- 
ter of Shrewsbury-School ; and Dr. Parr, in conjunction with 
Dr. Butler, dictated to the Editor a variety of observations, 
which were committed to paper, and laid before all the princi- 
pal scholars in England. But no comments of any great im- 
portance were made on those observations by the persons, to 
whose inspection they were submitted. Among the persons 
consulted were Mr. Elmsley, who sent a complimentary letter, 
and authorised the Editors to insert his name in the subscrip- 
tion list; the late Dr. Burney, who did the same; Professor 
Monk, who merely said in the course of conversation to one of 
the Editors, that such a work was what all scholars wanted, but 
that he feared that it was quite impracticable to accomplish it; 
and the Reviewer himself, or Mr. Blomneldf, who returned the 
papers with a letter ; 1 . remarking that the Editors seemed to be 
aware of all u the sources, from which a Lexicographer may 



f It will be as satisfactory to the public, as to Mr. Blomfield himself, to be pre- 
sented with a copy of the letter alluded to, which was addressed to Mr. Barker, 
and dated Chesterford, March 10, J8l2.:— 

'< I beg leave to return you my thanks, for a sight of the hints, which you have 
drawn up for a Prospectus of the projected republication of Stephens. You seem 
to be aware of all the sources, from which a Lexicographer may profit j permit me, 
however, to recommend, that great caution should be used in incorporating the 
Appendix of Scott, who has favoured us with some hundreds of words, which never 
Existed any where but in his own cerebellum. I believe that there is no Index 
Verborum to Galen, nor indeed am 1 aware of any Index. I know not how far 
Foesius may supply the place of it in his notes on Hippocrates, not having his 
CEconomia by me." 

The amiable and the learned Mr. George Dyer has recently informed the Edi- 
tors, that the library of Caius College, Cambridge, contains a MS. Index to Galen. 

Some of the errors in Scott's Appendix have been pointed out by Ernesti, in his 
preface to Hedcric's Lexicon. 

profit;" 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfiddianus. 27 

profit;" and 2. " recommending great caution in incorporating 
the Appendix of Scott," and with a few notes, which corrected 
some orthographical mistakes of the person, who had transcribed 
the papers, and contained a sneer at Lennep's Analogia Linguae 
Graecae, as edited by Everard Scheide, who " has gambolled in 
etymology at a most surprising rate," who has " danced after the 
ignis fatuus of etymology," who has written " a worthless far- 
rago of etymological nonsense :" see Reviewer, pp. 304. 308. 
322. In their printed Prospectus, the Editors invited all the 
learned men in Europe to assist them in their arduous undertak- 
ing; but still no further assistance was obtained than what has 
been mentioned. In these circumstances the public will see 
with what " sense of decency " or justice the Reviewer can now 
come forward and charge them with not having asked " advice." 
Either the Reviewer had at that time no " advice " to give, or 
he suppressed it from a disreputable motive. 

" Et illud quidem, quod postremum nominavimus, mensuram 
syllabarum, neglexisse Editores videntur." Hermann. 

" The utility and value of the Thesaurus might further have 
received a very important addition, if the quantities had been 
marked over all the doubtful syllables, as is the case in the best 
Latin Lexicons. We are surprised that this obvious and desir- 
able improvement did not suggest itself to the present Editors." 
Reviewer, p. 326. 

Here again the Editors have reason to complain of the most 
unfair conduct of the Reviewer, who repeats the objection of 
Hermann, and has wilfully suppressed their reply to it, which, 
as the reader will see by turning to Class. Journ. XXXVI,, 
was this : — (i The Editors need only observe, that it is their pre- 
sent intention to mark the quantity of the syllables in the Gene- 
ral Index." The reasons which have weighed with the Editors 
in making this determination, are these : 1 . agreat fear that " much 
valuable time" would be consumed in discussing the more knotty 
points of prosody, while the Subscribers would be impatient for 
the appearance of the work, 2. a conviction that the attention 
of the Editors would be thus drawn too much from the main 
object of unfolding the various meanings of the Greek words, 
3. that the prosodiacal discussions would fill too much space in 
the body of the work, 4. that the science of prosody is at pre- 
sent in a very imperfect state, but is advancing towards perfec- 
tion, 5. that by waiting till the appearance of the General Index, 
the work would be more perfect in this respect, 6. that in the 
mean time, according to the Reviewer, p. 326. " the student, who 
possesses Dr. Maltby's elaborate and accurate Thes, Gr* Poes., 

will 



Aristarchus Anti-Blonifieldianus. 

w ill need no other source of information on questions relating to 
the prosody of the language." 

" Neque illi in nominibus propriis qua ratione usi sint, dixe- 
runt, quorum perpauca commemoravit Stephanus. At, ut nos 
quidem arbitramur, hasc minime omnium negligenda sunt, non 
solum propter formas, quas vel ipsa, vel etiam quae ab iis deri- 
vantur, valde memorabiles habent, sed etiam quia magna pars 
horum nominum longe antiquissima sunt veteris Grsecorum lin- 
guae monumenta." Hermann. 

" P. 365. 'AyysXiog is given as a Greek word, on the autho- 
rity of Hesiod : 'AyyiXly 7ra>Ae7rai hit eugea, vcutu SaAaa-<njf. But 
the Editors remark, that the true reading is StyyeXlYjg, as in the 
best editions. Yet uyysKiog, they say, is a true Greek word, 
because there was a Bishop of that name in the reign of Valens. 
(He is called, however, by Socrates the Historian, 'AyeXhiog, 
which was probably his true name.) By the same process of 
reasoning we might be led to admit into the Thes. all proper 
names ; and yet we do not rind that the Editors have noticed 
*Evuygiog, or *Ilv$txyye\og" [ap. Thucyd. <2. init.] " or many 
others. For ourselves, we should be disposed to give all proper 
names : we only notice the present instance as a proof of that 
want of consistency, of which we complain." Reviewer, p. 343. 

On a close inspection of this passage, the reader will discover 
many symptoms of that " haste and inattention/' which the Re- 
viewer traces in the New Gr. Thes. The reader would natu- 
rally suppose that the parenthesis referring to Socrates was the 
addition of the Reviewer himself, but in fact it is taken from the 
Thes., of which the words are these :■*— 

" Sed, quamvis recte de Hesiodi versu vir doctus (Maltbius) 
scripserit, probum tamen esse vocabulum 'AyyeXiog satisque 
Graecum, patet e Suida, qui hasc, notante Pearsono, e Socratis, 
H. E. 4, 9- descripsit : 'Ayyekiog. Ovrog sit) OvuXevrog yv Koov- 
GTotVTivovTrokewg ' E7rl(rxo7tog, filov a.7tQGTo\ix.h ftiovg* awnofyTog yoig 
SioAou Sjrjysv, hi ts %iT(Jbvi ixgp^TO, to tqv EvctyysXiov QuXcittoov 
pyjTov. At in Zonara p. 15. qui eundem cum Suida habet arti- 
culum, non est 'AyyzXiog, sed * 'AysXluiog. ' Scr. * 'AyeXhwg, 
Socrat. H. E. 4, 9- Erat Episcopus Novatianorum a Valente 
exilio damnatus.' " Tittmann. 

The Reviewer, without noticing that Bishop Pearson, and 
after him Kuster, appear to have read 'AyyiXiog in their copy of 
Socrates, as we read in Suidas, whereas i)r. Tittmann seems in 
his copy to have had 'AyeKXiog, says that " 'Ayekhiog was proba- 
bly his true name." Now, in the edition of Socrates by H. Va- 
lesius, as published at Amsterdam in 1 700., the Editors of the 

New 



Aristarchns Anti-Blomfieldianus. 29 

New Gr. Thes. find the name printed *'Ays\io$, 2, 38. : 4, 9. 
Kou tov ' ' Eirla-xoTtov uvtSjv e%oglct ^i]](tioDy wgoo-eTaTTe* '/4ysXio$ ovojtta 
aurw* av^ r$>j 7r«Aa» ex tguv Koovq-txvtivov %q6mv, twv 'ExxA>}<n«Jv 
wgoeortog, xou filov Smtoo-toXixov /3<ou£* «vu7ro8r}TO£ ya£ 8*oAou S/^ye, 
xot) sv) yiT&vi exs^gYiTO, to tov EvuyysXlov (pvAarTcov j5>jtov : 5, 10. 
So too Sozomeni H. E. 6, 9. 7> 12. and Hofmanni Lexicon 
Universale 1, 107. But they agree with Tittmann and the Re- 
viewer in reading 'AysXXiog, which is defended by the name of a 
Latin w T riter, Agellius, sometimes used by scholars for Aulus 
Gellius. Petrus Scriverius, in a letter to Joannes Meursius, 
(Meursii Opp. 11,6.) " JVledicinam, quam adtulisti Agellio olim 
Medico, profecto bona est, et delicata." " Aulus Gellius, non 
Agellius, uti Codd. nonnulli habent." Noltenii Lex. Antibar- 
barum, p. 2004. " Agellius. Lipsius se hujus scriptoris nomen 
nunquam, nisi dubitantem et haesitantem ponere scribit, 1 An- 
tiq. Lect.X. cf.Tilem.p.295." Tobiae Magiri Eponymologium 
Criticum, 1644. 4. p. 8. " Gellius, vel Agellius ; nam utravis 
forma scribatur, in ea re salutem GraeciEe non versari scitissime 
censet C. Barth. xxxv, 7. qui tamen pro Gellio pronuntiat. 
Vide sis argumenta argutissima." Ibid. 86. Gellius was pre- 
ferred by the great Salmasius : Plin. Exerc. 23. b. 31. a. 34. b. 
" Etym. M. **Ayehxio§ 9 ovopct xvgiov, 7rg07rugo%vvsToti . Suid. et 
Zonar. *'Ays\ao$' ovo/x-a xvgiov, leg. AysXouo$. Suid. *'AyvXoao$* 
ovofxu xvqiov, f. 1. *AykK" Nov. Thes. G. L. 643. c. But the 
Editors have here been mistaken ; for 'AyeXuos arid 'AyvXaiog are 
Greek names, most assuredly the first : see Hofmann 1. c. et 1 1 7« 

If the Reviewer had examined the New Gr. Thes. more 
closely, he would have found that *Evxygio$ is mentioned in it, 
p. 718. d. : — "*EvoLygiu$, propr. nom. Zonar. Evdygiu$' xvgiov. 
Ovto$ eygottye halogen, xu) 1 Tt:o\kvyi\lcitol elg toL$ nugoipias 2o\op,wv- 
to$ 9 pro quibus verbis Suid. habet : Evdygio^. Ovto$ eygatye 
hitx$ogu 9 xoti 'TnofAVYifJirX, el$ roi$ noLpoipicis tov 2o\oix,wvto$" 

The Reviewer argues too acutely, when he says that " by the 
same process of reasoning," (viz. that 'AyyeXiog is a true Greek 
word, because there was a Bishop of that name in the reign of 
Valens,) " we might be led to admit into the Thes. all proper 
names ; and yet we do not find that the Editors have noticed 
Evdygiog, or JlvQayysXog, or many others. For ourselves we should 
be disposed to give all proper names : we only notice the present 
instance as a proof of that want of consistency, of which we com- 
plain.' 7 The Editors have not professed either to give or to omit 
all proper names, and whether they insert proper names occa- 
sionally, or omit them occasionally, there is " no want of con- 
sistency." They are guided by circumstances or by accident, 
and so was H. Stephens hiniself, who more often omits than in- 
serts 



SO Aristarc/tus Anti-B/omfic/dianus. 

serts them, and who was in this respect just as consistent of in- 
consistent as themselves. The Editors have frequently introduced 
proper names, more especially when any adjectives are formed 
from them, and this is the sole or the principal reason, which in- 
duced H. Stephens occasionally to admit them. Thus the Edi- 
tors, p. 699- d. have introduced *<Pi\oLygiog, unde *<PiXuyqiov, 
to, p. 709. c. % 'Aygi7nras, unde * 'AyqimrsM, to, p. 605. b. # !Jy- 
Qotyogotc, unde 7nx.gayooyixa>^ # i7u0ayo££*O£, et vyrOKogia-riTtw^ *27u0a- 
yogiog, et cetera derivata: p. 1530. *Aivy)o-io$, *'Agi<rTtxiveTo$ 9 
*' Agio-rams: p. 1531. *Meyuiveros 9 *IIavTot.ivero§.' In p. 607. c. 
a whole family of proper names, ending in ctyogu$ f is inserted, 
and to them may be added *Mvri<roty6gots, which occurs in Apol- 
lodorus. The Editors, being limited in respect to room and time, 
and not pretending to publish a perfect Lexicon, which would 
be an impossibility, could not undertake the tremendous task of 
collecting the many thousand names of men and women, which 
lie scattered in the Greek writers ; but they agree with Hermann 
and the Reviewer, in thinking that all proper names should be 
inserted for the reason assigned by the former scholar. The pro- 
per names, if uniformly inserted, must have included the names 
of mountains, rivers, fountains, hamlets, villages, towns, cities, 
countries, groves, temples, &c, which, however briefly discussed, 
would have filled far more than " several pages." 

" Major dubitatio de ordinanda atque adornanda tarn diffusa 
materia rnoveri potei at. De qua re omnium maxime vellemus, 
Editores sententiam suam cum lectoribus communicassent. Qui 
nihil aliud, quam non mutato ullo Stephani verbo librum se 
paullo melius dispositum exhibituros esse dixerunt. Ac reve- 
rentiam quidem illam, quam tanto viro habent, ut, quae ab illo 
scripta sint, mutare nefas ducant, magnopere laudandam puta- 
mus : merito enim liber iste et sua ipsius praestantia et loriga 
duorum et dimidiati sseculi veneratione quamdam quasi sancti- 
tatem adeptus est. Tanto magis miramur, quod, qui adeo reli- 
giosos se fore professi erant, ut ne unum quidem verbum Ste- 
phani mutare vellent, statim in prima pagina, quod ille scripse- 
rat, ' Ak<pa, prseter figuras, quas illi in fronte hujus paginae dedi : ' 
sic mutarunt: l *A\$ct,, praeter figuras, [quas ad fineni operis, 
cum oinnigenis literarum ductibus et compendiis, sublectas vi- 
debis,]' et paucis versibus post, quod scripserat Stephanus, f ut 
aliquandb, Deo favente, in meo de Calligraphia Graeca libro vi- 
debis,' omittendum, etin adnotationibus ponendum putaverunt, 
ea caussa, quod is Stephani liber lucem non vidisset. At adno- 
tari haec poterant etiam verbis istis nee mutatis nee deletis." 
Hermann. 

" The public may rest assured that no alteration whatever of 

any 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 31 

any importance has been made by the Editors, and that even in 
trifling matters no alteration has been made from their caprice, 
without a due consideration of the advantages resulting from it. 
When the Editors professed their intention to re-publish the 
original work of H. Stephens without alteration, they of course 
meant that no alteration of any consequence would be introduced 
by them without giving notice to the reader; but that in minor 
points, such as the orthography of words, they reserved to them- 
selves a licence, which, on a strict scrutiny, they will not be 
found to have abused." The Editors' Reply to Prof. Hermann. : 

" The Editors profess to give Stephens entire, and truly we 
think that he deserved it at their hands. But they have made a 
great many alterations in the text of the original work, all of 
which do not seem to be warrantable. For instance, under the 
head "AyysXos, Stephens says: ' [Composita sunt AuruyysXo^ 
dictyysXos,' E%ciyye\o$. Dicitur autem] AvTotyyeXog, Qui sibi nun- 
tius est/ etc. -The words between brackets are entirely omitted 
in the new edition." Revievver, p. 335. 

The Reviewer does not say precisely whether he considers 
the liberty taken by the Editors in this instance to be " warran- 
table," or unwarrantable. If he means the latter, it is a proof 
of his bad "judgment," or bad " taste." For the passage was 
erased partly as superfluous, and partly as erroneous.' It was 
quite useless to tell the reader in one line that auToiyyeko$ is a 
compound from oiyys\o$, and in the next line to begin the dis- 
cussion of that compound, because without the aid of those 
words, he must see that it is the case. (For a similar reason the 
Editors have uniformly rejected the C, i. e. Compositum, which 
Stephens prefixes to compound words, as, " C. 'E^a^arow^t idem v 
ut afytaToW) It is not true that §iuyyz\og and §£ayy=Aoj are com- 
pounds from uyy=\o$ : for they are formed from duxyyeWw and 
eijuyysKkco. 

'* In the next article, the words ' AvTotyysXoi, inquit Hesychius, - 
s*VTol$ xqutipzvoi otyyzXois,' are omitted as a part of the original 
observation of Stephens, and the quotation from Hesychius is 
given in a remark of Schaefer's-; and so the instance from Thu- ? 
cyd. 3. is treated." Reviewer, 1. c. 

For Schaefer's read Vakkenaer's. The passages from Hesy- - 
chius and Thuc, being of no particular use to Stephens' matter, 
were struck out of it, because, if left there, they would have ap- ; 
peared also in Valck.'s note, and thus there would have been a 
waste of room, and the Reviewer's kind and candid calculation 
of extent would have been swelled. 

" In p. 15. (=338. 339-) the Editors have transposed the ar- 
ticles '"AyyiXo^ pro ccyysXfMa/ and ''AyysXixr), Saltatioqussdam/ 

and 



32 . Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

and materially altered the words of Stephens in the last mention- 
ed article, which are these : — i '/lyyaAix)), Saltatio quaedam, quae 
inter pocula exercebatur. Athen. lib. xiv. Kai ir)v ayys\mr)v U 
wotgoivov r)xgl£ovv og^o-iv. Hesychius autem habet : 'AyyzXlr\ m 
%X>J°"'S t% iroLgolino§.' In the new edition it stands thus : — ' '4y- 
yekixr), r)$, rj, Saltatio quaedam, quae inter pocula exercebatur. 
Hesych. 'AyyeklY)' ogxytrls rig %agoivio;. 7 And then the quotation 
from Athenaeus is given as a part of the Editors' additional re- 
marks. But this is not reprinting Stephens, nor is it doing miss 
justice. If any alterations were to be made in his disposition 
of the* words and in his own observations, it would surely have 
been better to new-model the whole Thes., and to desert Ste- 
phens at once. ' As it is, we are ready to allow that these inno- 
vations are to be attributed to the plan, which the Editors have 
followed, rather than to carelessness on their part. It was hardly 
possible to fulfil their own notions, and yet adhere to Stephens." 
Reviewer, 1. c. 

This notable discovery of the Reviewer deserved the Scriptu- 
ral slaughter of the fatted calf, or the more generous sacrifice of 
a Pythagorean hecatomb, Diog> L. 8, 1. The articles '"AyysXog 
pro ayy? Ap*,' and * 'AyyeXixyj, Saltatio quaedam,' were transposed 
for a reason, which will be both obvious and satisfactory to the 
reader, if he will turn to the Thes. itself. The order in the ori- 
ginal of H . Stephens js : — 

1. "AyysXosy pro Nuntio Dei xotr e^o^v, Angelus. 

2. 'AyyeXixbs, y, bv, Angelicus, Ad angelum pertinens. 

3. "AyysXog pro ccyyeXpcc. « 

4. 'AyysXixY), Saltatio quaedam. 

5. "AyysXog, a Syracusanis dicta Diana. 

6. Composita ex*AyyeXo$, Nuntius. 

7. ' AvdyysXo$> ov, 6 9 y, Nuntio carens. 

Now the order, adopted by the Editors, is more nattfral, al- 
phabetical and logical, than the order of Stephens :«— 

1. *AyysXo$, pro Nuntio Dei. 

2. 'AyyeXixbs, Angelicus. 

3. 'AyyeXixY), Saltatio quaedam. 

4. \*'AyyzXiKY), Herba. 

5. [*'AyyskmY) pr](ns. 

6. \*AvToayysXi>to$. 

7. [*'AyyeXixa>$. 

8. "AyyeXo$ pro ayygA/x-a. 

9. — Diana. 

10. Composita ex "AyysXos, Nuntius. * 

11.. 'AvdyyeXog, ov, 6, ^ Nuntio carens. 
This is not the only instance, in which the Editors have trans-. 

posed 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 33 

posed articles in Stephens' work for the sake of alphabetical or- 
der. He has placed Alohofagpog after Alohodcogov : 'Ae§<nir6rviTos} 
'Asgo-iTroTYis, after 3 Asga-'ntovg , But in the new edition the alpha- 
betical order is observed by transposing them. But the Reviewer 
adds, that the Editors " have materially altered the words of 
Stephens in the article 'AyyeXixYj, Saltatio quaedam." In what 
does this "material alteration" consist? Are any of his argu- 
ments altered, or is any of his matter erased from the Thes. ? No, ' 
but with the sole view of economising room, and of adapting the 
new to the old matter* his quotation from Athen. is transferred 
to the new matter., The -original stands thus : — 

"'Ayyefaxrj, Saltatio quaedam; quae inter pocula exercebatur. 
Athen. lib. xiv. Kcc) tyjv ctyyskixrjv §s Tragoivov r)xgl§ovv og^Yj<riv K 
Hesychius autem habet: 'AyysXiy ngx^fg ti$ 7ragoiviog." 

The new edition : — 

" 'Ayysfaxr), r)g, ^, Saltatio quaedam* quae inter pocula exerce- 
batur. Hesych. y Ayy$\lr)* ogyr\(T\g rig noLgoiviog. [' Angelica ■'«■«- 
goiyog Hesychio est ayyeKir\ nagolviog.' Casaub. ad Athen. xiv. 
p. 629. e. ubi haec leguntur verba : Hugo. 8e 2vgotxov<riois xat # X<- 
raiveug 'Agrspudog ogyr\<j\g tI$ s<ttw 1$iog xcd a.vhr\cn$' r]v U rig xuilwvi- 
xy) ogyrpigizaLQo'wwg' xot) tyjv StyysXixrjv 8s %ugowov r)xgl£ovv ogX^v.]" 

Had the Editors made no alteration of the original, the whole 
would have stood thus : — 

" 'AyysXixr), (rj?, f) 9 ) Saltatio quaedam, quae inter pocula exer- 
cebatur. Athen. 14. (p. 629* e;) Ku) ty)v ayys\ixr)v 8s nagoivov 
i}xpi£ouv ogyyaw* Hesych. autem habet : 'AyysXlv)' ogyyrig r\g 
nugolviog. [' Angelica nugoivog Hesychio est StyysXlr] notgoiviog. 7 
Casaub. ad Athen. loc. qui integer est hie : Ilugoi, 8s Zvguxou<ri- 
oig x<x\ *XiTceveotg 0- *XiTa>vlot$) 'Agr&pifog ogxyvlg rig ecrriv "ihog xa\ 
av^Yja-ig' y]v 8s' rig xot) 'Ioqvixy) ogxyvig nagolviog' xcd tyjv ayys\ixr)v 8e 
irupowov i)xgl£ovv ogxyriv*]" 

The Reviewer will say that there would have been no occa- 
sion for the Editors to re-quote, and at greater length, the passage 
of Athenaeus, and that this is another instance of an article " pre- 
posterously amplified." But the truth is that Stephens' quota- 
tion is imperfect, that essential part being omitted, which shews 
that this kind of Saltatio was peculiar to Syracuse ; and here the 
Editors may by the way observe how much more advantageous 
to the reader a full quotation is than half a one. He who cites 
only half a sentence, as Mr. Blomfield frequently does in his pub- 
lications, very often deceives himself as to its meaning, and then 
misleads his readers; He who cites the passage entire* will in- 
deed make what the Reviewer calls " more bulky literature ;" 
but, though he may deceive himself, he cannot mislead his read- 
ers. The Editors need not comment on the absurdity of the Re- 

p viewer?* 



34 Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianm. 

viewer's remark, that making alterations, such as those pointed 
out above, " is not reprinting Stephens, nor is it doing him jus- 
tice." In a preceding part of this Reply, the reader has seen the 
Reviewer with his "most extraordinary" acuteness, arguing, 
that because the Editors have in one instance employed a proper 
name to vindicate a disputed word "as a true Greek word," 
they ought " by the same process of reasoning to have admitted 
all proper names into the Thes.," and have shewn " a want of 
consistency" in not having done so. Here the Reviewer has 
used " the same process of reasoning." Because the Editors have 
for the sake of order transposed two articles in Stephens, and for 
the purposes of saving room, and adapting the new to the old 
matter, have in one of those articles made a trifling " alteration :" 
("Et textum quidem non sumus ita morosi, ut totidem ubique 
litteris, quot a Stephano, exhibendum fuisse censeamus," Her- 
mann.) the Reviewer says : " If any alterations were to be made 
inhis disposition of the words, and in his own observations upon 
them, it would surely have been better to new-model the whole 
Thes., and to desert Stephens at once." The reader has heard 
of the /3a&>£ in poetry and oratory ; here he sees the fiubos in 
logic, and the sole merit of this discovery belongs to this " most 
extraordinary" son of Aristotle, the learned Reviewer! 

" Majus vero incommodum ex eo ortum videmus, quod, quae 
ab ipsis Editoribus textui inserta sunt, saepe ab iis, qua? Stepha- 
nus scripserat, $istingui nequeunt. Praeter haec illud quoque 
valde incommodum est, quod, quae ex aliorum scriptis depromta 
sunt, etsi fere uncinulis ad primum ultimumque verbum appi- 
ctis " " distinguuntur, tamen propter multitudinem horum unci- 
nulorum ssepe diu quaerendum est, usque dum, cujus ea verba 
sint, reperias." Hermann. 

" The present Editors, professing to preserve the whole of the 
original Thesaurus with the most scrupulous reverence, have di- 
spersed it here and there amidst a vast mass of omnifarious matter, 
so that we never know who it is that is instructing us, whether 
Stephens, or Schaefer, or Schweighaeuser, or Mr. Barker.— 
In a publication, which professes to be a new edition of Stephens' 
Thesaurus, we may reasonably expect to find the labours of that 
Lexicographer so distinctly separated from the recent additions 
to his work, that we shall have no difficulty in determining what 
is Stephens's, and what is not. But so little is this just and ne- 
cessary assignment of property attended to in the present work, 
that it is extremely difficult for the student to ascertain what 
portion of an article belongs to the original edition, and what is 
peculiar to the new. Parenthesis within parenthesis, and brack- 

etted 



Aristarchm Anti-Blomfieldianus. 35 

etted brackets confuse us in our enquiry, and demand more time 
than we can afford to bestow upon the parentage of each re- 
mark." Reviewer, p. 332. 

" One great advantage will result from the adoption of the 
plan, on which the Editors henceforth propose to act, that the 
Subscribers will have no difficulty in distinguishing the matter of 
H. Stephens from that furnished by the Editors themselves, be- 
cause the former will always be given intire, and the latter always 
subjoined in brackets." ^Advertisement to the 9th No. of the 
New Gr. Thes. 

"Nunc dicatur de iis, quse omitti potuisse videantur. Atque 
horum quadruplex genus est. Alia enim plane omnino super- 
vacanea erant ; alia brevius et contractus dici poterant ; alia 
rectius aliis locis servata fuissent ; alia denique, quamvis prse- 
clara, a Thesauro hoc alieniora erant." Hermann. 

" But least of all can it be tolerated, that in a work, which 
cannot possibly be made too compendious, (so that nothing im- 
portant be omitted,) the compiler should indulge in discussions 
and observations quite foreign from the subject in hand, and 
oftentimes having nothing to do with the word under considera- 
tion." Reviewer, p. 327. " The word kywtr\ f is dismissed with 
the following brief and insufficient notice : — ' 'Ayx.^, rj$, yi 9 Di- 
lectio, Caritas [Amor, Bene volenti a.] Plut. Sympos. vii. (6. 
T. 8. p. 835.) "Atottov Se xaj to vrpbg ocyvcorot xop&Yj xa» «o-«v^>j 
/3a8/£siv, uv fir} rig y 8»a<ps£a>v agsTJj, xaSonrsg siq^rui, xa) touto <pi\lotg 
7roiYj<r6(j,svo$ otgx^l v xo ^ otyot7r^ m oov to ptxoloog xa) oc<psXwg oc<pme<rQui cruv 
kregco ngos avrov. [' Ayct7rY)<rctiv recte scripsit Wyttenbachius sola 
sententiae auctoritate pro vulgato kyctmw wv. Sic et Reiskius 
conjecerat.]' Now Wyttenbach's correction might have been 
more concisely mentioned." Reviewer, p. 337. 

The Editors in this instance, conformably to their general 
practice, of which H ermann approves J, have given the very words 
of Wyttenbach, which are these : — " '^ya^o-cov, ita scripsi sola 

f The Reviewer 1. c. five times erroneously writes ayavh for ayoixn, and three 
times rightly puts the accent on the penult. The Editors have in a former part of 
this Reply noticed similar " inconstancy '-' in Mr. Blomfield as the Reviewer of the 
New Gr. Thes., and as an Editor of Aeschylus. To the instances already produced, 
may be added one from his Glossary on Aesch. Agam. 901., where we have /tejjTMg 
for i*,fon£. But in the Glossary on Prom. 90. he places the accent on the right 
syllable. 

X " Multo plura sunt, quae brevius dici-et potuisse, et vero debuisse putemus. 
Eo referimus ilia potissimum, quae Editores prseter necessitatem ipsis verbis viro- 
rum doctorum, quos auctores adhibent, adscripserunt. Nam etsi in uhiversum illud 
valde probamus, quod verba illorum potius, quam mentem exhibendam duxerunt, 
quo certius lectoribus de quaque re constaret, neque erroris aliqua suspicio sub-., 
nasceretur, tamen multo hoc cum delectu faciendum fuisse censetnus, ne etiam ea 
afferr.entur, quibus hand segre carituri essent lectoreS." 

D2 sentential 



3(5 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

sententiae auctoritate pro vulgato kyam^ $• <Zv: monueratet Reisk." 
Nor do the Editors know how the Reviewer could at once more 
briefly express the " correction " of Wyttenbach, and at the same 
time explain that in making it he was guided solely by the sense 
of the passage, and not by the lection of any MS. 

" In the same column we meet with another instance of the 
bad taste of the present Editors, in swelling to a needless size 
observations upon the most unimportant words : — 

' ' 'AftQctyoiifotm, Deamo, Valde amo, Carissimum habeo, 7rs§t<r- 
(rcJo$ ayonrw, praepositione upip) augente significationem. Poeticum 
est. Hesiodi Opp. (1, 58.) l Eov kolkov a(jt,<p<zyoc7ra)VTes. [Ab He- 
siodo sumsit Tryphiodorus v. 135. a G. Wakefieldio in MSS. 
laudatus : Tgwsg otTag^TOio derjs obrar^voga Ts^vr^v "iKtov # et(Tava- 
yoo<rw, kov xukov ctfji.<p>xyctncbvTs$.~] Hesych. tamen oty.<pot.yu7ra)VTsg ex- 
ponit simpliciter ao^ra^evo^, i. e. Amplectentes. Vide 'Afjupotyot- 
KctZ l ofx.svo$. [Etym. M. p. 88, 33. 'AptpcLyotnwvreg* yyovv TregitezX- 
vovTe$f 7rs|KTff«;5 ayairavr'ef. Hymnus Homericus in Cererem 
v. 439. a Schaefero in MSS. indicatus : IIoAXa 8' &§ otp$ctyot- 
Tnjcre xogtjv dYipyregog oLyvty. Sed recte Matthiaeus post Mitscher- 
liscbf, versum hunc tanquam spurium ejieiendum monuit.J 

" Now the quotation from such an- author as Tryphiodorus is 
obviously needless ; his authority and that of Hesiod are but one. 
If M atthiaj, and the gentleman with ten [nine] consonants in his 
name, did right in ejecting a spurious verse from the Hymn to 
Geres, the Editors did wrong in quoting it as an authority. The 
whole article might have stood thus : — 

" 7 Ap$otyci7r<xco, Dearrio, Valde amo, Carissimum habeo, ns- 
gt<r<ra>$ ayamih, [Etym. M. p* 88* 33.~\ praepositione a/*<pi augente 
significationem. Poeticum est. Hesiod. Opp, (1, 58.) 'Eqvkomw 
apfoLyoBF&vTss. [Unde Tryphiod. 135.] Hesych. tamen a^uyca^ 
r.&rrzg exponit simpliciter feirottynsvot, i. e. Amplectentes." Re- 
viewer, p. 338. 

The Editors act on a principle different from that, which go- 
verns the Reviewer. They are not accustomed to reject the au- 
thority even of " such an author as Tryphiodorus." Where good 
authority is at hand, they employ it ; where bad only appears, 
they give it for better or worse. H. Stephens does not reject 
words* which were coined by " such authors as" Janus Lasca- 
ris, and Theodorus Gaza. 

u Videntur Editores" voluisse, ut hie liber omnem linguae 
Graecse, quae antiqua et incorrupta esset, ubertatem quam dili- 
gentissime explicatam comprehenderent." Hermann. 

The quotation from Tryphiodorus, on the plan of the Editors, 

f So the Reviewer erroneously writes for Mitscktrlich. 

answers 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 3$ 

answers a triple purpose, 1. as an additional authority, Q. in 
shewing that he has adopted the three words of Hesiod, a fact 
not noticed either by Merrick in his edition of Tryphiodorus, or 
by Gaisford in his edition of Hesiod, and 3. as furnishing an au- 
thority for sjcravayw, a word unknown to H. Stephens. The 
Editors have aimed at making their work a Corpus criticum et 
philologicum, as well as a Thes. Gr. L. While they seek to as- 
sist the student by interpreting words, they would at the same 
time aid the critic and the philologist and the commentator by 
presenting them with copious quotations from the Greek writers 
of every class. " Quo fieri non potest, quin, qui utentur hoc 
Thesauro, plurimis in rebus mirifice se adiuvari sentiant." Her- 
mann. The Reviewer would, it seems, have contented himself 
with giving a simple reference to Tryphiod. But it would not 
have been clear to the reader, whether Tryphiod. had adopted 
all the three words of Hesiod, or only the two first, or only the 
last, and any scholar, to whom it was a matter of interest to know, 
would have been obliged to turn to Tryphiod himself, and, as he 
is not an author commonly read, his library might not have con- 
tained him. But, says the Reviewer, " if Matthiae, and the gen- 
tleman zvith ten [nine] consonants in his name, did right in eject- 
ing a spurious verse from the Hymn to Ceres, the Editors did 
wrong in quoting it as an authority." The Editors consider it 
to be due to Professor Schaefer to give intire what they find in 
his MSS., and accordingly they have cited from them the verse 
in the Hymn to Ceres, adding themselves, that the genuineness 
of that verse has been disputed by Mitscherlich and Matthiae. 
The Reviewer, after having, as above stated, kindly told to the 
public how he would himself have written the article on *A\l$ol- 
yunoiWy adds: — 

" All, that is more than this, is superfluous, and therefore 
hurtful, because it increases the bulk and expensiveness of the 
work, and needlessly distracts the attention of the student. A 
Lexicon is not the place for critical discussions. The best read- 
ings should be quoted ; and if the Editor thinks fit to adopt a 
reading, different from that of the edition, which he uses of an 
author, he may as briefly as possible state his reasons." 

But here the reader will exclaim, 

'AWwv 3 ictTf>o$, uvtq$ eAxe<n /3gtW. 

For Mr. Blomfield Gloss, ad Aesch. Prom. 376. has " swelled 
to a needless size observations upon a most unimportant word :" — 
" AonrTw, Voro. Eurip. Med. 1185. IIstt^oi 8e Xswroi, (rwv rs- 
kvcjov %&PY}fJi,otTct 9 AsvxrjV eScwTTOV critpta tt)s lu<r$odfJLOVOs. Eumen. 1039* 
%ogi$«7rra> Xajowra&j. Apoll. R, 4, 66. #Ao£ 8' afyoet <p*gp*x<' 



3S Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 

eSaTTTsv. Virg. Georg. 3, 566. Gontactos artus sacer ignis ede- 
bat. Choeph. 322. 4>povYi[^ct toO S/xvovTog ou lapo^ei JJvgog jU-aAeea 
yvaftog. Insignis est Phrynichi locus, e Fabula IlKsvpwvluig de- 
sumptus, ap. Tzetz. in Lycophr. 433. Kgurog nor' e\g yyv t^vS* 
eirs<rTpwp<x noW Tctvrog, og yr\v vcasv hpyoCwg Xswg, JJctiliotg 9ravr« xa» 
TzcLqoLXTiQv nXuxct ' ' flxiix pugyoig <pxb% iWvyro yvoifoig. Ubi ma- 
nifesto leg. est o$ y evuiev, et TJelia, 8g ncxvTU. Pro xgctjog suspi- 
cor Kotipos restituendum esse ; Cadmus enim Hyantas e sedibus 
expulit. Mireris autem forte fortuna evenisse, quod in fragmen- 
to ejusdem Fabulas ap. Pausan. Phocic. 348. Sylb. eadem meta- 
phora servata sit. Locus Pausaniae ita se habet : Tbv $g e7ri rw 
hctkcZ Ao'yov, cog Sods/rj jxev vtto Moigcov tvj ' ' Ahficiloiy MeXeaygcp &g oi5 
Trgoregov e&si (l. Seo») TYjVisXevTYjV o"Ujtx,£rjva/, noiv y} uno nvgbg cupavi- 
<T0»jvai tov SaAov, xcti cog imb too dujw-oO xccTot7rgYj<rei£V ocvrbv yj *AhQotici 9 
tovtov TOvKoyov <Pg6vi%og 6 IIoXvQgixfyovog 7rgwrog iv AgotfictTi g8sj£e 
n^sugooviuig. Kgvsgov ydg ovx %Xv%sv [togov ooxeioi 8g vw =z<P\bj; 
xarsSaiVaro SaXoo = 17gctQo(j,5VOV pargog bit ouvug xocxo^oc^dvoio, 
Phrynichi versus dedi, prout legendi et distinguendi mihi viden- 
tur. IlKsvguivlcng pro vuig. IlXzvgwvr kg, correxit Facius. Optime 
Sylb. 7rg»j0oju,g'vou et exhoig pro negbop.k'vQV et <x\ug. Eadem opera 
ap. Suid. v. <Pguv%og, pro Ilkevpwviot, reponamus IlXsvgwvictt. De 
historia cf. Choeph. 60 1. Ceterum monendum est voces uyglr 
«*5 yvtxQoig occurrere Choeph. 278." 

" The whole article might have stood thus :" — 

"JawTa>, Voro." 

" All" which " is more than this, is superfluous, and therefore 
hurtful, because it increases the bulk and expensiveness of the 
work, and needlessly distracts the attention of the student. A" 
Glossary " is not the place for critical discussions." " Of what 
consequence is it to the student, who looks into" the Glossary 
for the meaning of " Sa7rrw to know " how Tzetzes and Pausa- 
nias are to be corrected, " or to be pestered with all the nonsense 
which" has been " written, not upon" tionrroo, " but upon a pas- 
sage, in which" xarslaia-aro " occurs?" See Reviewer, p. 33Q. 

" Nusquam hoc magis conspicuum est, quam in iis, quae de 
nomine clyuXfjux. allata sunt. De quo quum e:\poni coeptum esset 
p. 181., nondum finitaest ilia disputatio p. 320., qua? ultimaest 
hujus fasciculi. At quis ducentas et quadraginta paginas unius 
vocabuli caussa perlegere sustineat ? Aut quis hie speret se Ion- 
gas dissertationes de Hecate, de nepivTloig, aliisque huiusmodi 
rebus permultis inventurum esse, quae etiam eo lectorem mo- 
rantur, quod difficulter, ubi incipiant et ubi desinant, invenitur ? 
Denique quis expectct, magna diligentia hie enumerari, ubi 
otyctXpec Iluvbg, A\og> 'AgTipifog, et sic caeterorum numinum ap. 

ve teres 



Aristarchus Jnti-Blomfieldiamis* 39 

veteres dicatur? Atque ut habeat aliquid utilitatis haec enume- 
ratio, quis non deos illos secundum litterarum ordinem comrae- 
moratos volet, non autem, quod hie factum, sine certo ordine ? 
qua? res mirum quantum auget quaerendi laborem. Omnino, si 
usquam, in his, quae de ista voce dicta sunt, mira regnat confu- 
sio ac perturbatio. Sic quum p. 197. allatus esset locus Eusta- 
thii de discrimine inter olyuXfj,a et^a^a, sequuntur Ilotvos oiyaK- 
pa. isto significant et 'Exa-njf ayaAjaaf, cum tota ilia Disserta- 
tione de Hecate, ac turn demum p. 257. in viamreversi pergunt 
Edi tores : — '"AyctXpoc passim a Poetis sumitur pro Decus, Or- 
namentum, Deliciae/ w Hermann. 

After these remarks, one would have thought that the Re- 
viewer from " a sense of decency" would not have renewed this 
subject, and from a feeling of generosity, would not have struck 
a prostrate foe. 

" It will scarcely be credited, that 139 columns are occupied 
by the single word "AyuXfia, or rather by a series of dissertations 
upon every thing relating to ornaments, images, and decorations 
of all kinds, with occasional episodes upon matters altogether 
foreign, which happen to cross the Editor, as he is hunting the 
word uyotXpu through all the mazes of philology. It is curious 
to observe how frequently he loses the scent, and goes oft' upon 
a new track, if some curious expression or custom thwarts his 
path. For instance, the word ayuXpoL occurs in the last line of 
an Epigram, which the Editor transcribes at full length as usual, 
(for it is no uncommon thing with him to give us half a page of 
an author at a time,) and in which Epigram mention is made of 
the custom, which hunters had, of suspending some part of the 
game to a tree, as an offering to some Deity ; a custom known 
to every fourth-form boy J. Accordingly off goes the Editor, in 
a note upon this practice, not containing one word about &yu\- 
jw,«. In the next page but one, because 'Exar^ uyotXpa is used 
by Aristophanes to signify ' a dog ', he actually begins a disser- 
tation, which is continued through 55 columns, upon the saeri- 

•f- "Cujusmodi est fragmentum Aristpphanis ex TayttvurraTs ap. Schol. ad Ran, 
295. %6ovta,s 'E**rns tu^x, tttfym l&Xiga^svn, cuius quamvis facillima esset emenda- 
tio, tameri quid mirerriur, non esse earn factam ab Editoribus Thesauri p. 231. d., 
quum ne Bi unckius quideno, qui de industria hoc agere debebat, quidquam adno- 
taverit ? Servatum hoc erat Seidlero, qui in brevi Disputatione de Fragmentis Ari- 
stophanis, quae nuper edita est, p. 21. ita scribendum esse vidit : XHo/ta, tr 'Exu>r^ 
ctuyti lp oo* XxiXfoftfii*? 1 Hermann. But the Editors prefer the correction of Per- 
son ap. Kidd. ad Dawes. Misc. Crit. 584. XSmm'a $' *E*4r«, ^s«<g«s oipieav uXt%»fiivn> 

On 'Er.«r»j ayaX^asee Osann. Anal. Crit. 127. 

X " Where, if Abresch and Bos bad not long ago restored igii*, any fourth'form 
boy would." Mr. Blomfield, in the Edinburgh Review of Dr. Butler's Aeschylus, 
Ko. 38, p. 504. 

fices 



40 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus* 

fices offered to Hecate and other Gods, and the different titles 
of Hecate, and notes on the Tgl§a\\oi, and Sophron, and oLppa^ 
ri^co, and Mercury, and the ancient Chemists, and what not ? — 
but not a word of, or relating to ccyuK^oc in the whole of this 
enormous excrescence. Again, we have a careful enumeration 
of all the passages, which contain any mention of oiyotk^u Ails, 
TJavo^ 'A7t6x\cjovo$ etc. and so on through the whole Pantheon ; 
which kind of obscura diligentia is much the same, as would be 
that of an English Lexicographer, who, under the word Church f, 
should proceed to enumerate St. Paul's Church ; St. James's 
Church; St. Pancras ; St. Botolph; St. Benet Fink; Alhal- 
lows, Balking ; and Christ-Church, which of course would fur- 
nish a good opportunity for several dissertatory columns upon 
Oxford, Cardinal Wolsey, etc-^r-The Editors are aware of the 
censure, which they have deservedly incurred in this respect, and 
have offered the following apology in a recent number of the 
Class. Journ. : — 

' Should any of the Subscribers, from a cursory view of the 
work, be disposed to infer that, as so much space is employed 
in the explanations of some words, there is but little chance of 
the undertaking ever being completed within the prescribed li- 
mits ; the Editors would add, that much of the matter, both in 
the text and in the notes, relates to words, which will come un- 
der discussion, as they proceed. The quotations, for instance, 
introduced from the Greek writers and the Greek grammarians 
to illustrate the various significations of the word "AyaXpct, are 
equally applicable to the illustrations of the synonymes '^va'flv^a, 
^Avlqius, Bgirag, Fqu^y], £ooivov,etc, (synonymes % forsooth !) and 
thus the work is in reality advanced in proportion to the extent 
of such matter/ 

" But this defence, although plausible, is not true [for satis- 
factory i forsooth ! ']. The question is, not whether every word 
is to be illustrated at equal length; but whether a proportion- 
able number of words> throughout the alphabet, are to serve as 
pegs for notes and dissertations ; and we do not hesitate to af- 
firm, that, if the Editors preserve any degree of consistency or 
plan, and illustrate other classes of words in the same manner, 
. 

f The reader wilj observe how all this Church-learning designates the Domestic 
Chaplain of the Bishop of London. 

| The Reviewer may be startled at this sound of synonymes. But the words 
are nevertheless synonymes. If ayuXfiee, and avufaftet were not occasionally sy- 
nonymous, the one word would not in the works of the Greek Grammarians be 
interpreted by the other, see the New Gr. Thes. p. 192. c. j and the same may be 
said of the other words mentioned above as synonymous. 

as. 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldiamis. 41 

"as 'they have elucidated ayatyca, and some others, the magnitude 
of the intire work will even exceed that, which we have assigned 
to it." Reviewer, p. 333—5. 

The Editors have not a sufficiently "microscopic" eye to see 
clearly what is meant by " every word," and " a proportionable 
number of words," and the inquiry may "demand more time 
than they can afford to bestow." But they are prepared to main- 
tain that their " defence," so far as it goes, is as satisfactory and 
" true," as it is " plausible." The synonymous words discussed 
under uyuX^u will not be re-discussed in any other part of the 
Thesaurus ; and the words incidentally discussed in the text or 
the notes will not be re-discussed elsewhere. But, if they had 
not been discussed here, they would have been discussed else- 
where. The real length, therefore, of the article on ayuK^ct is 
what it contains independently of those discussions of synony- 
mous terms, and independently of those words incidentally dis- 
cussed. 

The Reviewer says that " the article on * Ayu.Xyi.cL occupies 
)39 columns" — granted. He also says that in them are included 
"fifty-five columns on Hecate" etc. — granted also. 

" Their number last he sums. And now his heart 
Intends with pride, and hard'ning in his strength 
Glories." Milton's Paradise Lost, l, 571. 

But then the actual length of the article on "AyotXpa is 1 39 — 
55 = 84 columns only. Then from the 84 columns considerable 
deductions are to be made for the synonymous terms discussed 
and for words incidentally discussed, and thus the famous story 
of ayuK^u, (his delight,) like the monkey's tail, becomes less and 
less, till all the wonder ceases. " Remove perturbationes, maxi- 
meque iracundiam : jam videbuntur mons tra dicere" Cic.Tu;SC. 
4, 24. The Reviewer here admits "the defence" set up to be 
" plausible," though not satisfactory or " true." But in another 
place he has indirectly admitted the validity of this "defence ;" 
for jn. p f 3£8. he says : — " The Editors, in a paper drawn up 
for the purpose of obviating some objections of Prof. Hermann, 
have endeavoured to defend themselves by stating, that ' it has 
been their great object, as far as it is practicable, without dis- . 
turbing the arrangement of H. Stephens, to bring into one and 
the same article all the various synonymes, because by their 
juxta-position they mutually reflect light upon each other/ But 
this defence is totally inapplicable to a great proportion of the 
.discussions, of which we complain." 

Let the reader observe that the Reviewer here only denies the 

applicability 



42 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

applicability of " the defence" " to a. great proportion of the dis- 
cussions, of which he complains," but does not deny its applica- 
bility to the remainder of them, whereas in the other passage he 
roundly asserts that " the defence, although plausible, is not 
true." 

a Such reasoning falls like an inverted cone, 
Wanting its proper base to stand upon." 

Cowper's Table-Talk. 

The Editors will allow him all the aids of his own ratiocina- 
tion and all the benefit of his Aristotelian logic, and in his own 
gentlemanly language (p. 341.) "defy" him to reconcile the 
contradiction between these two passages. He found it conve- 
nient to take no notice of these observations of the Editors, 
which immediately follow the words cited by him : — " But 
this plan, excellent in itself, is accompanied with the disadvan- 
tage of extending the discussion of some articles to a length, 
which astonishes the reader, who does not consider that a great 
part of them properly belongs to other letters of the alphabet, 
and that the real length of each article is to be estimated with- 
out taking into the account the space occupied by the discussion 
of synonymous terms. Stephens himself sometimes explains 
one word under another. The Reviewer, as a lover of order, 
would expect Stephens to put pa$av<SoD(r0ai under 'Pa^avos, but 
he has put it under TjAAco. Schneider, in his valuable Lexicon, 
under the word Swuxrixos, wishing to defend the reading o-uvs- 
xtixco in a passage of Lucian, found himself under the necessity 
of introducing matter, which belongs to Kgov<n$ and Kgov<rTixo$, 
because Lucian couples o-uvexnxcp with xgovcmxco. If criticism 
be at all admitted into a Dictionary, the introduction of extra- 
neous matter under particular words must also be allowed. In 
p. 563, the Editors have occasion to quote the gloss of Hesy- 
chius, n§o§o\og' 7rgo(x,ov\o^ irqa^wxps, wgovoijTfo and with a view 
to illustrate the meaning oiirgo€o\o$, they discuss by anticipation 
the word irgopouXos, which the interpreters have misunderstood, 
and then to support their explanation of 7r§opov\o$, they enter, 
also by anticipation, into the discussion of wgopuxos, which has 
been equally misunderstood by the interpreters. JSJow the Re- 
viewer condemns all this as contrary to the right order of things; 
but the future expounders of Hesychius will be obliged to the 
Editors for having brought into one place and under one view 
the whole gloss, instead of discussing it in different parts of the 
Thesaurus." 

" Postremum supra illud posuimus, esse etiam, quae ut alie- 

niora 



Aristarchus Anti-Bloinfieldianus. 43 

niora a Lexico, plane videantur omittenda fuisse. Et huiusqui- 
dem generis veremur, ne non adeo pauca, si quis severius rem 
sestimare velit, inveniri queant. Referimus eo ilia potissimum, 
quae ex libris, qui in omnium manibus et sunt et esse debent, 
Thesauro illata sunt. Uno defungamur luculento exemplo. 
Nemmem fore putamus hominum has litteras tractantium, qui 
non Valckenarii scripta, in iisque praeclaraillaTheocriti Decern 
Idyllia possideat. Ex hoc igitur libro cur, quum in Thesauri 
p. 10. de a intensivo diceretur, pleraque, quae ibi disputata 
erant, repetita sunt . ? Quae si erant repetenda, certe id in singulis 
istis vocibus, quae a intensivum habere putantur, faciendum 
erat. Quanto recti us ipse Stephanus eo ipso loco de v. oi^vXoi 
loquens, ' ut docebo,' inquit, *suo loco, i.e. inter voce, quae ex 
nomine %6\ov per compositionem sunt facta/ Nobis ita yidetur, 
melius Editores lectoribus consulturos fuisse, si nominassent 
tantum hie Valckenarium, et, omissis ipsis ejus verbis, enume- 
rassent vocabula, in quibus creditur a hanc significationem ha- 
bere, quo, qui id agerent, singula suis locis posita quaererent." 
Hermann. 

" We have further to observe, that a great portion of the cri- 
tical extracts, which are inserted at full length in the Thesaurus, 
are taken from works in the possession of every scholar. Unless 
the Editors intended to make their book a corpus phihlogkum, 
so complete as to supersede the necessity of all other critical 
works, they ought not to have increased the bulk of their vo- 
lumes with huge notes from such common books, as Valcke- 
naer's Theocritus. For instance, in p. 10. of the Thesaurus, 
they detail nearly the whole of that long Digressio a Theocriteis 
on the intensive power of a, whereas all, that was necessary, 
was to give a simple list of the words, in which 5 seems to exert 
this power, with a reference to Valckenaer's Dissertation ; more 
particularly since it i3, after all, very doubtful, whether the vis 
intemiva tou « be not a fiction of the Grammarians : that it b 
so, seems to be the opinion of the acute and learned Porphyry 
in his Quaestiones Homericae ; and Mr. Kidd has, in our opi- 
nion, successfully explained away the instances, which Valcke- 
naer has adduced." Reviewer, p. 340. 

The Editors have not at present access to Porphyry's Ho- 
meric Questions, which are to be found in the Preface to 
Barnes's Homer. Mr. Kidd's opinion would certainly have 
been noticed by them, had they been acquainted with it at the 
time, when the article in the Thesaurus was written. They 
suppose the Reviewer to allude to this passage in Mr. Kidd's 
Review of the Grenville Homer : — 

"Much as we revere the erudition of Valckenaer, we cannot 

assent 



44 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

assent to the result of his investigation of what is denominated the 
intensive power of a. Xelqx a^X>j^^v denotes ' A hand not formed 
to sustain the assaults of war' : rsl^sot aSxyxgd, O. 178. ' Walls 
unfit to withstand the impetuosity of Hector'; and Samros 
a§\Yixph$, Od. A. 134. i The dissolution of a person not experi- 
encing the agonizing pains of premature departure/ but ripe 
in years and virtue, dropping into the grave like a shock of corn 
in his season, Animam senilem mollis exsolvens sopor. See par- 
ticularly Cic. de Senect. 19- and Schol. A. ad II. 6. 178. 

So would I live, such gradual death to find, 

Like timely fruit, not shaken by the wind, 

But ripely dropping from the sapless bough ; 

And dying, nothing to myself would owe. — Dryden. 

In Soph. Tr. 106. a$ccxg6Tc,ov denotes, 'Incessantly streaming 
with tears;' and Ant. 88. wjpov c&dxqvrov, i A fate exciting 
tears never to be exhausted/ II, A. 155. 'A^6\ca uKy atf $$ oy- 
M$ IfuXiWro, Schol. A.\ Callim. H. in Cer. 26. 

T)v h' oaiTot. xaAov aK<rog s7ro»>j(raVTO HeXouryoi 
Jevfye<nv u^Xa^s^' hd xsv p6\\c, evQoi q'kttqs* 

Ovid Met. 8, 418. 

Quod nulla ceciderat aetas. 
Eur. Hippol. 75. 

"JEvfl' QVT6 Troipjv a%ioi <psg£siv /3or«, 
Ov$ YjkQe 7ra) o-/<fygo$." 

Critical Review for June, 1803. p. 128. 
This opinion deserves attention ; but the Editors are not at 
present prepared to assent to it. 

From the above parallel between the " objections " of Her-r 
rnann, and those urged by the Reviewer, it must be self-evident 
to the reader that they are substantially one and the same. Now 
the Reviewer calls the "objections" of Hermann " trifling," and 
therefore he must admit that his own are equally "trifling." 
But he speaks ofhisownas weighty "objections," and therefore 
Hermann's " objections " are equally weighty. Hence in term- 
ing them " trifling," he has travelled beyond the truth, and the 
only construction, which the Editors can put on this " most ex- 
traordinary " conduct is, that the untruth was told for the sake of 
injuring the New Gr f Thes. by falsly representing, that, as the 
praises of Hermann are " most fulsome and unsupported," so 
his "objections" are "trifling," and " merely extorted from him 
by a sense of decency." 

This unfounded attack on Hermann's Review is followed by an- 
other, which the Editors will now prove to be equally unfounded. 

4. That 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 43 

4. That " Mr. Hermann and his school never miss an oppor- 
tunity of lavishing their censure on Porson," and his English 
followers. 

The Editors will confine their attention to a vindication of 
Hermann from this " most extraordinary " charge, after having 
observed that this sweeping accusation against the German 
scholars does not come with any great propriety from that very 
party, which in Mus. Crit. 3, 41 6. has said :~" Mr. Schaefer 
appears to possess a more intimate acquaintance with the 
writings of English Scholars, and to have formed a JUSTER 
opinion of their merits, than we have hitherto remarked in the 
generality of his countrymen." 

"Posteriore loco complectitur Excerpta e Ricardi Porsoni 
Censura Editionis Brunckianse Aristophanis, plena ilia bona- 
rum rerum, quales a tali viro, quern PRINCIPEM CRITiCO- 
RUM dixisse me nondumpoenituit, exspectari poterant." Schae- 
fer. Prsef. ad Edit. Nov. Aristoph. Plut. p. xxiii. 

This title is more than once assigned to Prof. Porsonby Prof. 
Monk ad Eur. Hippol* "Immediately after the fatal event, 
which deprived the world of the first Scholar of his age." No- 
tice of Porson's Adversaria, in Mus. Crit. 1, 115. 

" Quse Weigelii nostri, de Htteris optimis bene mereri pergen- 
tis, sumtibus nunc evulgatur, Adversariorum Ricardi Porsoni 
Editio, non dubitamus munus philologis fore longe gratissimum. 
Tantum enim liber eximius thesaurum rerum optimarum tenet." 
Schaefer. Praef. 

The following quotations from the works of Hermann will be 
sufficient for this purpose : — 

" Postea apud Britannos metra attigit R. Porsonus, vir magmz 
accurataque doctrines, qui, quantum diligenti exemplorum com- 
paratione efficipoterat, in Us, qua nota habebat, mctris itaprce- 
stitit, ut et observationes quasdam egregias, et non paucas prce- 
claras emendationes attulerit. Omninoque did vix potest, quan- 
tum hicvirfexemplo suo studiis Gr&carum litter arum prof uerit. 
Idem si etiam aliquid obfuit, non id ipsi,. sed aliis tribuendum 
est. Magnorum enim virorum est, reserare claustra et mon- 
strare viam, non quo pone quis sequatur, magna impari passu 
vestigia legens, aut ad summum ibidem, ubi ipsi, consistat, sed 
ut longius alii procedant. Porsonus quidem, vir errandi tarn 

f " The Greek plays, edited by this wonderful man, have turned the attention 
of several Academics towards philological learning, which, it must be confessed, 
has few and feebie attractions to the eagerness of curiosity, or the sprightliness of 
youth." Dr. Parr's Spital Sermon. See the Notice of the -Museum Criticum, in 
the British Critic for Nov. 1313. p. 488-9.— Editors. 

par cm, 



4§ Aristarchus Jnti-Biotnfieldianus. 

parous, quam Bentleius prodigus fuerat ; audentissimus entm 
Me, quod periculum nonformidarei, scepe, sed xfiro juiya* fxeyw 
Kmart. Porsonus igitur, sive non habens parem, seu ratus ita, 
quum id non celaret, hoc est a popularibus suis consequutus, 
ut, fassi, dissentire ab eo nefas ducantt; non asquum neque e 
re sua facientes, quum exteros quoque idem servitium subire 
voluntj, siquidem eorum demum iusta est atque honesta ad- 
miratio, qui mortalem nullum erroris immunem esse memores, 
ut libere dissentiunt ab aliis, ita ipsi modestiores sunt. Post 
Porsonum plerique Britannorum nihil ultra audentes, ad Gram- 
maticos relapsi sunt. Digmts est tamen, qui mult a cum laude 
cornmemoretur Gaisfordius, vir doclissimus, qui etsi raro suum 
interposuit iudicium, tamen et probe sc didicisse has res, et libere 
posse ac sine cupiditate iudicare ostendit. Hctc prceclara Editio 
Heph&sLionis nuper demum, impressa iam parte aliqua libri, 
quern nunc accipis, Bliimnere, ad me perlata est. Apud Nostrates, 
quorum hsec singularis virtus est, quod colligendo non content!, 
etiam in caussas rerum inquireie amant^, Aug. Seidlerus versibus 
dochmiacis, re difficillima, explicandis plus, quam quisquam 
alius ad metrorum scientiam contulit. Qui etsi eo in libro vide- 
tur aliquanto, quam debebat, audacior fuisse, tamen intelligentes 
liarum rerum iudices non solum, quam difficile sit,sciunt modum, 
ubi nova proferas, tenere, sed illud etiam cogitant, praastare 
utilibus admiscuisse aliquid falsi, quam vacua errore, sed inutilia 



f "Margin viri (Porsoni) rationes minus perspectas habeo, in ejus licet verba 
•modo mm jura->e svm addictus," Blomfield. ad Aescb. Pr. 277. " Now as the pro- 
babilitiei are infinitely greater, that Erfurdt mistuok the construction, than that Por- 
son's memcry failed him, we may safely adopt the former alternative, and consider 
Tvyxjint not as equivalent to vvy%oim av t but as signifying contingit, in which 
sense it is properly used with a dative." Monk on the Electra of Sophocles, in 
Mus. Crit. I, 65. But Person is admitted by Mr. Elmsley, Mus. Crit. 3, 351., to 
have been mistaken about this very point, and Professor Hermann agrees with 
Mr. Elmsley in thinking so. 

J ** And though wedo very much honour Aristotlefor his profound judgement and 
universal learning, yet are we so farre from being tyed up to his opinions, that per- 
sons of all conditions amongst us take liberty to discent from him, and to declare 
against him, according as any contrary evidence doth engage them, being ready 
to follow the banner of truth by whomsoever it shall be lifted up." Vindic. Acad. 2. 

"Aucsoritas Ruhnkenii metuo ne plus, quam- pond us argumentorum, quibus 
est usus, ad plurimorum assensionem valeat. Quamquam quum omnino nulliuc 
homrnis apvd eos, qui liberali sunt indole praditi, tanta debet esse veneratio, ut eius 
in verba wrare^ quam ipsi rem cognoscere malint, turn in Ruhnkenio, quamvis egre- 
.tfiae sagaeitatis critico, duo alia, eaque valde illustria exstant exempla, quae, ne 
quis temere indicium eius in tali re sequatur, admoneant." Hermann. Diss.de 
Aetate Scriptoris Argonauticorum p. 680. Editors. 

$ T. Hemsferhusius ad Lucian. 1, 330.: — " Omnes, ut fieri vulgo solet, loca 
quaedam veterumindicassecontenti, propius investigare, quid indecolligideberet, 
atque ad moris antiqui rationem explicandam conferri, neglexerunt.V Editors. 

attulisse. 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianm. 47 

attulissef. Verumtamen quum ille Porsoni quosdam errores 
notavisset, contumeliis abhujus secta et conviciis, extremo iner- 
mium perfugio, exceptus est : qualia quis non aequo animo ferat, 
quando neque a quovis, neque quavis conditione laudari iucun- 
dum est ?" Praf. ad Elementa Doctrinae Metricae, p. xv— vii. 

u Praeclare animadvertit Thomas Tyrwhitt, vir excellentis in* 
genii." Elem. Doctr. Metr. 741. 

"Egregiaest observatio Bentleii ad Lucan. 1,231. merito 
repetita a Gaisfordio ad Hephasst. 270. — Omninoque ob- 
scurior est ratio, qua explicare vir summus et hoc et duas istas 
monosyllabas voces conatur, more suo ad arcanam musicae ratio- 
nem provocans : quam si ipse satis explicatam habuisset, neque 
arcanam, opinor, appellavisset, et exponere, quam digitum ad 
earn intendere maluisset. Nimirum vir eximius acute sentire, 
quid recte, quid secus fieret, solebat, sed explicare nunc nolebat, 
nunc alia, quam debebat, via aggrediebatur." Ibid. 340. 

" Auxerant autem disserendi materiam adnotationes viri docti, 
quern non dubium est P. Elmsleium esse, insertae Musei Critici 
Cantab. Pt. 3. et 4. Praeterea usus sum iis, quae nupera The- 
sawri Morelliani Editio suppeditabat, qui liber multa utilia 
continet : nondum eum videram, quum Elementa Doctrinae 
Metricae edidi." Praef. ad Soph. Ajac. p. vii. " Elmsleiiis, 
Atticae dictionis observator diligentissimus." Praef. ad Soph. 
Electr. p. xiv. " Ad quam opinionem etiam inclinat Maltby ad 
Morell. Thes. 405." Ad Soph. Electr. 19. " P. Elmsleius, vir 
ingenii doctrineeque laude florentissimus." Censura Medeae 
Elmsleianae J, in Class. Journ. 38, 267. " Afferemus autem talia 
potissimum, in quibus dissentimus ab Editore clarissimo, non 
quo reprehendere velimus virum, quern maximi facimus, sed 
quia censuram, quae nihilaliud quam liber ipse, cuius ea censura 
est, contineat, inutilem esse existimamus." Ibid. 270. " Ex- 
cessimus vel sic modum paginarum, qui nobis praefinitus erat : 
sed etiam haec sufficere poterunt ad confirm andum nostrum de 
P. Elmsleii opera iudicium : quern virum eo esse ingenio vide- 
mus, ut, si se illo regularum servitio§ liberaverit, ante multos 

alio? 



f " Mr. Knight may deserve, at least, this praise, that the errors in his research 
are sometimes more to the purpose, than the successful inquiries of others." 
Porson's Review of Mr. Knight's Essay on the Greek Alphabet, in Mus. Crit. 
4, 509. Editors. 

X Mr. Elmsley's observations on the Medea v. 1023. #?%« V eit ha<p^S t are ex- 
amined at length in the New Gr. Thes. p. 847. b — 849. a. 

§ See Hermann, ad Soph. Electr. 938. Ajac. 423. -1061. " The only material < 
fault, that we find in Mr. Elmsley's works, is too great a fondness for establishing 
new canons of criticisms. When by unwearied observation he has discovered 
that a particular form or Construction occurs but 'seldom in the Tragedians, or 

Aristophanes, 



48 Aristaiclius AnU-BlomJic/diaiiris. 

alios Graecis litteris profuturuni confidamus. Sic autem existi-- 
mamus, et sua hoc queuique experientia docere potest: quo 
quis plus in litteris profecerit, eo eum paucioribus indigere re- 
gulis, qua? nihil sunt nisi adminicula titubantium. Prsestat ra- 
tiones regularum intelligere, quas qui perspexerunt, simul etiam, 
quos terminos regulas habeant, sciunt." Ibid. 289. 

" -K. Bentleium quantopere admirer, Candidati humanissimi, 
quum in scriptis meis ssepe declaravi, turn ii seiunt oinnes, qui 
vel Scholis meis, vel familial i consuetudine usi sunt : habeoque 
earn admirationem quasi hereditariam a praeceptore meo, FY. 
Volg. Reizio, qui nunquam nominabat Bentleium, nisi cum 
aliqua reverentise significatione, tantumque ei tribuebat, uteum 
discipulis suis tamquam perfectissimum critici exemplum pro- 
poneret. Quod viri eximii iudicium quum mihi verissimum 
esse videatur, facio ego quidem idem, ut adolescentibus, qui an- 
tiquitatis studia consectantur> Bentleium pra3 caeteris duceni 
commendem, verumtamen ita id facere consuevi, ut simul eos 
moneam, ne, si viam inveniendi veri rectam ab eo sibi monstrari 
videant, continuo etiam, quae invenerit ille hac via, vera esse 
credant, sed potius, conservata libertate iudicandi, eadem via, 
an ille aberraverit a vero, perspicere studeant. De qua re operas 
pretiuin putavi paucis exponere, praesertim quum videam Fr. 
Aug. Wolfium, qui in Analectis Literariis Vol. 1. egregie de 
Bentleio t disseruit,illud, quod in primis a tali viro exspectabatuiv 
non fecisse, ut quid laudandum in Bentleio atque imitandum, 
quid autem reprehendendum et vitandum esset, ostenderet. Et 
quamvis putem caussas ilium quasdam habuisse, quare haec 
non attingeret, tamen quod p. 54. de Terentii Editione iudicium 
posuit, eiusmodi est, ut tanto magis^ quid mihi videatur,- dicen- 
dum ducam, quo maior huius viri apud omnes auctoritas est. 

Aristophanes, be is much too apt to conclude that it never ought to occur, and to 
alter the exceptions to his rule of exclusion. It happens, of course, that some of 
these altera! ions are violent, and consequently improbable. An attention to in- 
stances of rare usage is highly useful and important to the critic : the circum- 
stance of an expression, a construction, or a metrical arrangement, being seldom 
used, is sufficient to decide a controverted reading, and to prevent the introduc- 
tion of any thing similar in an emendation. But before we alter the authorized 
reading in such cases, we should reflect, that of the writings of those poets only a 
small proportion has descended to our times; and that, if three or four lines 
occur, containing an unusual, though legitimate, form either of metre, or of syn- 
tax, it is agreeable to all just reasoning upon probabilities to believe, that the lost 
writings, could they be restored, would prevent many other lines corroborative of 
those instances." Blomfield's Review of Elmsley's HeraclidaS, in MuS. Crit. i, 135. 
f In this excellent life of Dr. Bentley the Editors find no mention of the life 
written by the late Dr. Burney in a periodical work, which has long ceased to exist, 
and has almost dropped from the remembrance of men. The Editors will, there- 
fore, deserve the thanks of Dr. Bentley's admirers by directing their attention to 
this little piece of biography, which is to be found in the London Magazine for Oct. 
3783. p. 310—20. Nov. 1783, p. 402- 17. Dec. 1783. p. 526— 34, and Jan. 1784. 

Ait 



Aristarchus Anli-Blomfieldianns. 49 

Ait autem etiam iu huius scriptoris Editione Bentleiurn aliquot 
audaces et tcmerarias coniecturas more illo parum sane laudando 
intextumintulisse,sed tamen qui posthac ad Terentii emendatio- 
nera accessuri sint, multo pauciora inventuros esse, qua? reiicere 
debeant, quam in ullo alio, quem ille ediderit, scriptore. Ducem 
et auctorem huius sentential ut opinor, habuit vir sumrnus 
Reizium, quem ssepe memini dicere, multo cequius viros doctos 
de Terentio Bentleii iudicaturos esse, si ille, quas fecit adnota- 
tiones ad eum scriptorem, eadem cura ac diligentia, qua ad 
Horatium, perscripsisset. Ego quidem aliter sentio, et, licet 
numquam non dicturus sim, quod semper professus sum, unicum 
Terentii sospitatorem esse Bentleium, tamen vix paucas in to to 
eo libro paginas esse arbitror, in qui bus non inveniatur, quod 
aut non satis recte, aut minus considerate dictum sit. Quae 
tamen res etiam augere debet admirationem viri, qui quamvis 
in tanta errorum copiaimmortale ac plane divinum opus condi- 
derit. Sed priusquam exempli s, qua3 dixi, comprobem, paucis 
de ingenio viri dicendum est, ut appareat, quomodo summa? eius 
virtutes seepe non potuerint non in vitium vertere. 
. " Erat Bentleius vir infinite doctrinae, acutissimi sensus, acerri- 
mi iudicii. Et his tribus rebus omnis laus et virtus continetur cri- 
tic! . Ex quibus scientia antiquitatis idonea ordine primum tenet 
locum, ut quae et sensum nutriat atque excolat, et iudicio mate- 
riam prsebeat iudicandi. Ad earn sensus accedat necesse est, 
qui positus est in naturali quadam facilitate statim animadver- 
tendi, quid quaque in re verum, aptum, decorum, venustum sit : 
cui etsi, ut dixi, nutrimenta et cultum preebet antiquitatis per- 
vestigatio, tamen procreare eum, si cui non est a natura datus, 
non potest. Est autem hasc tarn prasclara atque eximia facul- 
tas, ut sola sit illud, quod ingenii nomine appellare consuevimus. 
Qua qui prsediti sunt, etiam si careant ilia, quam statim dice- 
mus, iudicii subtilitate, tamen soepe felicissime exercent artem 
criticam, quatenus ea quidem in coniectancli facilitate consistit: 
sed si res demonstratione indiget, neque ipsi sibi rationes reddere 
possunt, neque alios quo ad suam sententiamperducant,habent. 
Quamobrem tertia accedere debet iudicii vis et subtilitas, quas 
caussis rerum investigandis, explicandisque rationibus, et do- 
ctrinaa et sensui lumen afferat. Atque huius demum accessio 
facit, ut quis vere dignus appellatione critici censeri possit, non 
secus ac militem neque arma faciunt, nee fortitudo, si disciplina 
atque exercitatio absit. Est autem haec uti prasstantissima in 
critico virtus, ita eadem etiam periculosissima, non quod quis 
nimium habere iudicii queat, sed quod abuti eo proclive est. 
Qiium enim qui acri iudicii sunt, plerumque severiore soleant 
et fen idiore ingenio prasditi esse, facile eo abripiuntur, ut sola 

E iudicii 



00 AristdirJius Anti-BIonifieldiunus. 

iudicii vi omnia perfici posse existiment, atque ita modo ea, qua? 
discendo cognosci debent, negligant, modo sensum admonitorem 
non audiant. Non est autem obscurum, pro rerum, quas quis 
tractet, diversitate, plus minus cum abuti iudicio posse. Sunt 
enim, quae unice iudicio opus habeant : in quibus nullus est 
abusus iudicii. Aliud est enim, perperam iudicare, quod potest 
accidere etiam non abutenti iudicio; aliud, abuti iudicio, quod 
facere potest etiam qui recte iudicat. Sunt vero etiam, qua3 
moderatorem iudicii sensum ilium, quern diximus, recmirant : 
in quo genere proprius est iudicii abusus, si quis, ubi sensum 
consuli oportebat, ab iudicio auxilium petat. Ex illo genere, 
quod primum posui, res sunt historical : in quibus pervestigan- 
dis, si materia omnis congesta est, nulla re nisi iudicio opus est. 
Quare has, qui omnia ad iudicandi severitatem revocant, recte 
tractabunt. ldque Bentleium in DissertatiombusWWsPkalarideis 
et Epistola ad lo. Millium sic fecisse videmus, ut vix ullum per- 
fectius cogitari artis criticse monumentum possit. Ad alterum 
genus scriptorum veterum interpretatio atque emendatio per- 
tinet. Ea vero inprimis sensu illo indiget, qui ex obscuris est 
notionibus compositus, quas attenta operis cuiusque lectione et 
contemplatione coliigimus. Qui sensus quum bl> id ipsum, 
quod obscuris notionibus continetur, quasi inermis sit, si ad iu- 
dicii strenuita tern comparetur : facile obmutescat nece'sse est, 
si quis, ubi examinareeumpotius atque explicare debebat, st'atim 
rem ad rationis subtilitatem traducat, eoque disputationem non 
ad id, ad quod conveniebat, sed ad aliud quid conferat. ldque 
omnium facillime in poetis fieri potest : quorum quum omnis 
oratio ad sensum magis, quam ad severas quasdam cogitandi 
regulas composita sit, non recte interpretabitur eos, qui verba 
eorum, tamquam si mathematici aut philosophi essent, ad amus- 
sim exigat, et non potius quid senserint, quam quid argutando 
ex singulis verbis elici possit, consideret. Quod si hoc in 
genere qualem se prsebuerit Bentleius, dicendum est, nullus est 
scriptor, quern ille adnotationibus instruxerit, quin innumerabilia 
exhibeat exempla disputationum, in quibus etsi subtilitatem iu- 
dicii admirari debeamus, tamen non possimus non abusum eius 
reprehendere. Etenim quum ille fervidius omnia atque baud 
raro etiam cupidius attrectaret, sscpenumero elabi sibi p; 
est ea, quae si animadvertisset, longe aliter fuisset iudicaturus. 
Nam etsi sensu illo, quem diximus, minime carebat Bentleius, 
tamen saepe, fervidioris naturas impetu abreptus, dum explicare 
eum vel negligebat, vel ob rei difficultatem defugiebat, in iis re- 
tinebatur, quae ad primum adspectum non satis commode dicta 
videbantur, eaque tarn cupide emendabat, ut suis ipse dispu- 
tindi artificiis captus, non videret ilia, ex quibus nullam esse 

emendandi 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 5 1 

emendandi necessitatem intelligere potuisset. Ita factum est, 
ut hie tarn eximius vir minime eamdem in poetarum emenda- 
tione, quam in explicandis rebus historicis laudem meruerit. 
Verum tamen ut ille plurimos poetarum locos, si verum fateri 
volumus, corruperit magis, quam emendaverit, tamen ratio, qua 
in his disputationibus usus est, tam est egregia, ut nihilominus 
exemplum haberi debeat,quod imitentur,qui diligenter, accurate, 
et perspicue de his rebus disceptare volant. Qui ut et hoc 
discant$ et simul temeritatem, quam in Bentleio multi notarunt, 
declinare adsuescant, mea sententia illud [sic] potiasimum ope- 
ram dare debent, ut has Bentleii disputationes, quibus ille locos 
sanos vexavit, aut affectos non recte restituit, eadem, qua ipse 
uti solebat, diligentia ac strenuitate refellant, quaeque neglecta 
sunt ab eo, ea in luce collocent, ut errasse eum iam dubitari 
amplius nequeat. Nam illud quidem facillimum est, sensu rao- 
nente improbare ac reiicere eius emendationes : idque permulti, 
immo plerique fecerunt Editores Horatii Terentiique, quorum 
tamen null us fuit, qui comparari cum Bentleio posset. Hoc 
vero, refiitare eum, uti saepe difficillimum est, ita, si recte et 
plene fiat, simul et debitam tanto viro reverentiam prodit, et 
operam scriptoribus illis vere salutarem prasstat, et exercitatio- 
nem affert artis criticae utilissimam. 

" Sed non est praetereunda una res, in qua Bentleius singulari 
cum fructu litterarum sensui omnia, iudicio prope nihil tribuit. 
Dico autem rem metricam, in qua luculentissime apparet divi- 
num viri ingenium, qui non alio duce, quam sensu suo, spretis 
inanibus magistrorum commentis, nova nullique tentata via ad 
veritatem perruperit. Nam quum omnis numerorum scientia a 
sensu originem ducat, naturam eorum autem rationesque expli- 
care difficillimum sit : non est mirum, Bentleium, quae vera esse 
sentiret, quum ea explicare non posset, audacter ut certa in me- 
dium attulisse; quorum explanatione ut supersedere posset, 
arcanam rationem musices memorabat, bene gnarus, opinor, 
aliis eanrnon magis, quam sibi ipsi notam esse. Ita evenit, 
ut, quum iudicium ab his rebus proculhaberet, solumque sensum 
sequeretur, non incideret in errores illos, a quibus aliter vereor 
ut immunis mansisset. Quod si in singulis quibusdam locis 
aut versibus Terentii ab recta metrorum ratione aberravit, haec 
non est eius metricae scientiae quaedam perversitas, sed de verbis 
ad metra accommodandis pravum iudicium. 

" Itaque, ut paucis comprehendam, siciudicabimus de Bent- 
leio, in rebus historicis criticum eum esse perfectissimum ; in 
scriptorum autem veterum, poetarum. maxime, emendatione 
saspissime abusum esse iudicio suo, ita tamen, ut etiam ubi er- 
rat, in demonstranda defendendaque sententia sua admirabilis. 

E 2 sit, 



o L Z Aristarchus Anti-Blonifieldianus, 

sit, denique; ubi eum rei natura ac nccessitas quaxlam ad solum 
sensum veri redegerat, nulla iudicio abutendi copia relicta, ex- 
imium conspici." 

DeR. Bentleio eiusque Editione Terentii Dissertatiop. v — vii. 

" Chorum Eumenidum, aliaque nonnulla, quce cum hacquae- 
stione coniuncta sunt, attigit nuper etiam Blomfieldius in Praef. 
ad Aeschyli Persas : qua? omnia si vellem persequi, facile tertia? 
alicui Dissertationi materiam invenirem. Verum quoniam non- 
nulla horum ex iis, quae a nobis disputata sunt, facile a quovis 
iudicari "poterunt, illud tantum paucis commemorabo, quod 
praetermitti res ipsa vetat. Putat enim vir doctissimus, Aeschyli 
aevo numerum personarum chori arbitrarium fuisse." .De Choro 
Eumenidum Aeschyli Dissertatio prima p. iii. 

From the above quotations it is irrefragably true that the 
charge brought against Hermann by the Reviewer, that " he 
never misses an opportunity of lavishing his censure on Porson," 
and on Porson's English followers, is totally without foundation* 
Writing as Hermann frequently does on the same subjects, as 
occupied the mind and exercised the pen of Porson, he must ne- 
cessarily mention his name; and this mention of his name is some- 
times expressive of approbation, and sometimes of disapproba- 
tion, according to the views, which he takes of those subjects. 
Porson's English followers experience from Hermann precisely 
the same fair and honourable treatment, which Porson himself 
has received t» But, while it is admitted that Porson handled 

Hermann 



f The Editors know only one individual of their own country, who has been 
treated with any apparent harshness by the Professor, (ad Soph. Ajac. 510. Elecf.r. 
21. 45. 57. et 144-3.) they mean Mr. Kidd, to whose general learning and accuracy 
they bear a willing testimony. The Professor has given the reasons for his opi- 
nion ; and the public can decide on their injustice or their injustice. He has, however, 
made more honourable mention of him in his Elena, Doctr. Metr. p. 155. But let 
the reader dispassionately consider whether the Professor did not receive some 
provocation from Mr. Kidd. " At length a German critic of great acuteness and 
metrical subtlety extorted from him I hat portion of the Supplement, which in ex- 
actness of research, nice perception of wrong, and clearness of induction, is almost 
without a parallel. The generous Hermann was wont to do njustice'm his Lecture- 
room j it has been hinte a that this inds/ah gable Editor had in contemplation a 
defcnte of the anapest in the third place. 'Homo neque meo judicio stultus, et 
suo valde sapiens,' Cic. de Orat. 1, 39. Indeed Et. P, had no great opinion of the 
metrical science of the German Editors. He once closed an interesting conversa- 
tion about them with the line of Cratinus, which he recited with particular em- 
phasis: 

Ouroi V »Wn 'ZuoGoicoro), Kt>outfiZ,o(po£M yivos a»^6/i." 

Tracts and Miscellaneous Criticisms of Porson p. i,xxm. 
" R. Porsoni Adversaria — thisvolume has been lately reprinted at Amsterdam for 
the booksellers at Leipsig, Leyden, Rome, Florence, Hamburgh, Vienna, and Paris. 
The Appendix and Propempticum are of little or no value, the paper is wretched, 
and the whole transaction is t*uly German." Ibid, i.xxxi. The book was reprinted 
not at Amsterdam, but at Leipsic. "The Appendix/' which Mr. Kidd most un- 
justly 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldiamis. ' 53 

Hermann very roughly, (Mus. Crit. 3, 326 — 37.) it is contended 
by the party of the Reviewer that the first example of severity 
or injustice was set by Hermann himself. How far this is true 
or false, the Editors have not the means of ascertaining, nor is 
it very important for them or the public to know. Certain, 
however, it is that Hermann has done ample justice to the learn- 
ing, the sagacity, the judgment, and the accuracy of Porson in 
those works, which he has published since the death of Porson; 
and it is for the Reviewer and his party to explain why the per- 
sonalities between these modern Goliahs were not suffered to 
die with Porson. Mr. Blomfield may justly claim to him- 
self the merit of having with the spirit of an Indian barbarian 
conceived the right of revenge to devolve to him as the literary 
representative of the deceased, and of having presented the red 
hatchet of war instead of bearing before him the sacred calumet 
of peace. (Travels of Lewis and Clarke from St. Louis by way 
of the Missouri and Columbia Rivers to the Pacific Ocean 
pp. 28, 54. 94.) 

" Had the publication of such a multitude of critical dainties 
been intrusted to any of our GERMAN brethren, they would 
probably have been diffused through many full-grown volumes 
to the great delight of all lovers of bulky literature." Blomfield 
in Mus. Crit. 1, 119- 

" The Meletemata Critica (of Schaefer) contain the readings 
• i __ 

justly describes " to be of little or no value," will nevertheless be found very- 
valuable to all tbose Scholars, who are interested in ascertaining the genuine text 
of the Greek Authors, to whom it relates, viz. Lucian, Achilles Tatius, Aelian, 
Themistius, Alciphro,Antimachus, Libanius, and others. As to the "Pvopempticum" 
de Agro Trojano in Carminibus Homericis descripto, surely Mr. Kidd will not deny 
that this is sufficiently interesting to those, who are engaged in tracing the geo- 
graphy of Homer. How then could he describe it " to be of little or no value ?" 
The " value" of books is not yet to be determined by the relation, which they bear 
to the Greek writers of Tragedy and Comedy, and Learning does not yet mark 
for her own those only, who have confined their studies to the Greek Drama. 

Jacobs in the Appendix p. 319. thus corrects Alciphro 2, 4. *A<ygia, QvMet ruv 
aKxvSui, for the vulgar reading ki6^u^m. But the Editors prefer the readingpro- 
posed by themselves in the New Gr. Thes. 1422. where the passage is fully dis- 
cussed, eiy^ix <pvX\u ayh^lxuv. The article t»v is a gratuitous insertion of Triller 
and Jacobs. 

In p. lxxxvii — xcv. Mr. Kidd gives what he calls a " synopsis of cmendatory 
criticism," shewing the remarkable co-incidence between Professor Porson's edited 
and Dr. Bentley's inedited conjectures on Aristophanes, and produces the follow- 
ing remark of Hermann ad Nub. 325. " Bentleius, summus alioqui criticus, sed 
nullius auctoritatis in Ar'btophane, ad quern minime imbutus Attici sermonis co- 
gnitione accessit." 

The Editors would observe by the way that the only omission, which they have 
discovered in Mr. Kidd's Opuscula Ruhnkcniana, is the collection of notes furnished 
by Ruhnken to Van Goens for his Ed. of Porphyry de Antra Nymph arum. See 
the Preface of Van Goens p. xxvii. 

of 



34 Aristarchus Anii-Bloni/ieldianus. 

of this MS. for the four first chapters of the Ars Rhctorica, with 
copious Notes from the pen of the Editor, which display good 
taste and extensive learning, though they are not entirely free 
from the charasteristic fault of GERM AN Commentaries." Idem 
ibid. 3, 416. 

(i It is well known that Mr. Hermann has for many years 
been preparing an edition of Aeschylus, of which the present 
publication, being merely the text of the Eumenides, was 
intended as a specimen. The learned Editor manifests 
his usual boldness in his critical operations on Aeschylus. 
Et ferrum et ignis scepe medicine loco est." Idem ibid. 1, 
114. 

" Of Person's Notes and Emendations, it (the Leipsic edition 
of Porson's Adversaria) contains not an additional word. W hence 
then does it derive the epithet audio?" % Why, from an Appen- 
dix containing 50 pages of heavy GERMAN commentary upon 
Lucian, Achilles Tatius, Libanius etc. from the pen of Frederic 
Jacobs. And this is the new companion to the remains of Per- 
son ! ! ! This is the improvement of a book, of which the German 
preface admits, Tanlum liber eximius thesaurum rerum optima- 
rum tenet. Never did we know such an instance of the living 
and the dead bound together, as this volume presents." Ibid. 6, 
324. " The most daring, as well as the most improbable ar- 
rangement, is that of Hermann on Eurip. Hec. p. 76. whose 
changes, though violent and offensive, are all implicitly adopted 
in Erfurdt's edition. It will be satisfactory to the lover of So- 
phocles to see these verses of his poet rescued from suck treat- 
ment, and to learn that there is neither necessity, nor room for 
those alterations." Monk, ibid. 1, 66. 

" Seidlerus, vir loquax," Blomfield, ibid. 2, 141. 

" Mr. Augustus Seidler, the author of an immoderately long 
Treatise deVersibus Dochmiacis." Ibid. 4, 569- 

" Blomfield. ad Callim. H. in D. 1 0. : — < In Leonidas Tar. Epigr. 
Br. Anal. 1, 226. versus hujusmodi legitur : Ev>coifL7tss uyxtoTgw 
xa) hvvoiKot, fovXi%Qsvrci. Vocalem ante (vx corripi posse conten- 
dit Jacobs, post Toup. et Musgr., quibus, qui vult, fidem ha- 
beat. Versum Leonidae difficilem emendatu vocat Seidler. de 
Vers. Dochm. 25. n. Itane vero? Utinam nihil inter poetarum 
Graecorum reliquias difficilius sanatu esset. Quid enim ? Unum- 
ne tantum hamum, quern consecraret, possidebat 6 ygmevs Ato- 
$a.vTo$? Non hoc isti putabunt, qui mecum rei piscatoriae ope- 
randi navarint. Lege clyxio-rg evxa^Trrj k. 8. &.' Et mox, quum 
quinque exempla, in quibus pluralis est, attulisset, ita pergit: — 
* Ceterum Seidler. iste ; qui tam facilem correctionem praatervidit, 

de 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfteldianus. 55 

de Porsoni, si diis placet, erroribus, a se castigatis, magnifice 
loquitur. Nempe leoni mortuo vel asinus calcibus frontem ex- 
terit.' Qui sciunt, quae leges sint artis criticse, etiam laudabunt 
Seidlerum, quod se praatervidenda hac correctione criticum, 
quam facienda piscatorem piaebere voluerit. Rationes afferre 
in re plana supervacaneum puto. Sed ii, quibus exempla pro 
ratione sunt, viderint, quid faciant Archiaa Epigrammate 10. 
Ilium vero ego non ineptum dixerim, qui ex isto Epigr. Archiaa 
ap. Leonidam scribendum conjiciat, yuptyov r ayKKrrqov. Cas- 
terum aliquanto verecundius loquuturum spero virum optimum, 
ubi reputaverit, quo quisque doctior sit, i. e. quo magis didice- 
rit, quantum sit, quod nesciat, eo solere modestiorem e se. Pro- 
fuerit autem inspexisse censuram Aeschyli Persarum in Diariis 
lenensibus m. Iunio h. a. (1816.) fol. 105. 106. a tali viro scri- 
ptam, cui non facile quis superbius respondeat." Hermann. 
Elem. Doctr. Metr. 809- 

But notwithstanding this well-merited rebuke, Mr. Blomfield. 
has persevered in the same line of conduct towards Seidler, and 
it is really amusing to hear him read a lecture to Seidler about 
the supposed bitterness of his remarks on critics : — " Nectgoi <pu- 
ovg xotqv, Hermann., vsov q&zi vkotov, vel vsoppcupYj gxotov, (i.e. 
Caliginein nuper consutam,) teste Seidlero de Vers. Dochm. 57. 
vel, ut ipse nuper monuit, viagotyxri vxotov. Ceterum hinc di- 
scat vir egregius de cpnjectuns aliorum paullo mitius loqui." 
Blomf. ad Aesch. Agam. 742. 

" Lysis, Poeme trouve par un jeune Grec sous les ruines du 
Parthenon, et traduit en vers par l'Editeur. This poem consists 
of four Sapphic stanzas, follozmd by three cantos of iambics in 
the Greek character, and intended, no doubt, to have been in the 
Greek language; but the author, who is designated by the ini- 
tial, Joseph Victoire L. # # , magnis excidit ausis. A more un- 
fortunate attempt at Greek composition we have seldom seen, 
except in the poemata of Mr. IGNATIUS LlEBEL." Blom- 
field, Mus. Crit, 4, 562. 

The reader in the last cited passage will perceive another 
proof of the identity of Mr. Blomfield with the Reviewer, whose 
words p. 339. are these : — 

" But of what consequence is it to the student, who looks into 
his Thesaurus for the meaning of aya/o^xa/, to know whether 
Moses du Soul was right or wrong in his correction of Lucian, 
or to be pestered with all the nonsense, which Mr. Ignace Lie- 
6e/has written, not upon ayalopcu, but upon a passage, in which 
uyodopai occurs ? 

" We have a right to say this of any man, who undertakes to 
publish the Fragments of a Greek Poet, and tacks to the end of 

his 



o6 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

his book Greek verses of his own, faulty both in syntax, prosody, 
and accent. For instance : 

NcmoXzcjovog xoti Aol6'ixi]<; Tol^oc,. 
"Agys NccTroXt'jov yu(x,si 'AyXoil'av Aodoi'xYjV 
IIocvtoov, o$ jasv 07r\oi$, xaXXs'i rj de xqarii. 
Which we translate, for the benefit of the Ladies, into verses, 
somewhat better and more correct than the original* 
" The Marriage of Napoleon and Louisa : 

" Napoleon, alias Mars, the mighty Caesar, 
" Aglaia takes to wife, to wit Louisa. 
" Of all mankind, in high or low degree, 
" The topmost; he in arms, in beauty she." 

The Reverend Reviewer will be pleased to see two verses 
" better" than either Liebel's, or his own : 

" Strike up the fiddles, let us all be gay, 

" Laymen have leave to dance, if Parsons play/ 7 

Cowper's Progress of ErrouR; 

Though the Reviewer modestly thinks his own verses " some- 
what better and more correct than the original," yet persons not 
very hypercritical might object, 1. to the defect of rhyme in 
Louisa and Ctzsar, 2. to the /3a0o£, which appears in describing 
Napoleon to be Mars, and then immediately afterwards, only 
the might]/ Q&sar, (but here the Reviewer may, if he pleases, 
shelter himself behind the Latin proverb, Jut C&sar aut nullus,) 
3. to the application of topmost to beauty. Liebel is not the only 
person, who has annexed bad verses to a classical book, and 
the sum total of his offending is four pages. 

But the Reviewer, who does not seem to have studied logic 
under Aristotle, argues, (mirabile dichi!) that LiebeFs philology 
must be nonsense, because his poetry is bad : — " But of what 
consequence is it to the student, who looks into his Thesaurus 
for the meaning of ayotlofMu, to be pestered with all the nonsense, 
which Mr. Ignace Liebel has written, not upon aya/o//,ai, but 
upon a passage, in which uyotlopcu occurs ? We have a right to 
say this of any man, who undertakes to publish the Fragments 
of a Greek Poet, and tacks to the end of his book Greek verses 
of his own, faulty both in syntax, prosody, and accent." 

" It was natural, therefore, that those scholars who wished for 
the publication of this Lexicon, should be desirous of seeing it 
printed from the Galean MS. in preference to any other. ' Non 
eram nescius/ says Mr. Hermann, i fore, qui neque aliter quam 
ex ipso Codice Galeano, edi debuisse censerent/ We appre- 
hend that this innuendo is levelled at the late Professor Porson, 
who, it is well known, had transcribed and corrected this va- 
luable 



Aristarchus Anti-Blonifieldianus. 51 

luable Lexicon, for the press. But, while we are anxiously 
looking for its appearance, lo ! Photius is put into our hands, — - 
but not the Photius of our acquaintance, nor the Photius of 
Richard Porson, but the Photius of Godfrey Hermann ; and, 
had the Editor's name not been affixed, zvc should have been at ?io 
loss to determine at whose door it should be laid, since it bears 
many marks of that precipitancy and want of concoction, which 
so often distinguish the productions of that very learned and able 
German. We have here merely the naked text of Photius, ex- 
tracted sometimes from one MS. copy, and sometimes from an- 
other, (both of which are eminently inaccurate,) with scarcely a 
single correction of Mr. Hermann's, or any attempt whatsoever 
towards the restitution of the text. His apology for all this, 
however, is of the most ingenuous and comprehensive nature. 
The blunders, which he has left in the text, were too palpable, 
it seems, to need any correction ! * Sunt autem plerique errores 
ex eo genere, ut non possint nisi imperitissimos fallere.' Whe- 
ther this be really the case, we shall have occasion to examine 
hereafter. In the mean time, we cannot help observing, that 
Mr. Hermann seems to have been desirous of preoccupying the 
field, into which he understood Mr. Porson to have entered ; 
but that, wanting time or something else, to furnish his author 
with a body of useful notes, or to restore him to his pristine in- 
tegrity, he was yet resolved to be the first, who should publish 
Photius. And Photius accordingly we have ; but alas ! how 
changed from that Photius, who returned from Assyria, laden 
with the spoils of 300 authors ! We have, however, at the end 
of the volume a ' Libellus Animadversionum/ by J. F. Schleu- 
sner, a scholar justly celebrated for his admirable Lexicon of the 
New Testament ; which animadversions were drawn up two 
years after the Photius was printed, and leave us the less room 
to regret the want of Mr. Hermann's lucubrations." Edinburgh 
Review of Photii Lexicon, No. 42. p. 330 — 1. " But we must 
still detain our readers, while we briefly examine the validity of 
Mr. Hermann's excuse for publishing an uncorrected text, viz. 
that the errors are such, as can only mislead the most stupid of 
mankind. Of many, indeed, this may truly be said. Nothing, 
surely, but an undue partiality for his own name, could have in- 
duced the learned Editor to print, 'Egpuv vcpcuXog verga. 'Avti- 
<pwv, xu) 'Avctxgsoov, not) 'AgicrTotpavys, instead oVEg^oc' fj u<paAo£7r. 
Dr. Schleusner's correction of "Egpu$ is wrong." P. 336. 

" As the errors in this Lexicon are such, as can deceive none 
but the most stupid, we cannot expect to gain any credit with 
M r. Hermann, if we correct the above Glosses in the following 
manner." P. 3S3. 

This 



56 JHslarchiis Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

This is a fine sample of the gentlemanly conduct and the " li- 
terary honesty, " which may be expected from this hackney Re- 
viewer. 

1. The "Reviewer takes for granted that Hermann was ac- 
quainted with Porson's intention to publish Photius, and " was 
desirous of pre-occupying the field." But where are his proofs 
of the fact? It is true that Schleusner, in the preface to his Li- 
bellus Animadversionum ad Phot. Lex., has mentioned Porson 
by name : " Editionis Lexici Graeci, quod scripsit Photius, Pa- 
triarcha Constantinopolitanus, ac asvi sui in omni literarum ge- 
nere facile princeps, cuius spem nobis hucusque frustra fecerant 
viri celeberrimi, Borcherus, Ancherus, atque Porsonus" etc, 
But does it necessarily follow that a fact, known to Schleusner 
in March 1810, which is the date of that preface, was known 
to Hermann in 1808, when Photius was printed ? 

2. Having gratuitously assumed this fact, the Reviewer has 
no scruple in assuming another, that Hermann intended to 
" level an innuendo at Porson" in the words, Non eram nescius 
fore, qui neque aliter, quam ex ipso Cod. Galeano edi dehuissc 
censerent. The Editors perceive no innuendo whatever in these 
words, and believe Hermann to be quite incapable of the 
meanness imputed to him. In Hermann's preface, from which 
this Reviewer cites only just so much, as serves to give a colour 
of probability to his malicious and false statements, the words 
stand thus : — " Quod etsi non eram nescius fore, qui neque ali- 
ter, quam ex ipso Codice Galeano, neque sic commentariis de- 
stitutum edi debuisse censerent, tamen etiam futuros sperabam, 
qui utcumque edito uti, quam usu eo prorsus carere mallent, 
praesertim si cognovissent, his, quae in notis ad Hesych. ex eo 
Lexico proferuntur, non posse unique iidem haberi." 

3. The Reviewer states that Hermann's "apology" for pu- 
blishing Photius " with scarcely a single correction, or any at- 
tempt whatsoever towards the restitution of the text, is of the 
most ingenuous and comprehensive nature — the blunders, which 
he has left in the text, were too palpable, it seems, to need any 
correction ! Sunt autem plerique err ores ex eogenere, ut non pos- 
sint nisi imperitissimos fallere" But, on examining Hermann's 
preface, the reader will discover that his " apology" is of a very 
different description : — 

" Ego enim quum rogatu bibliopola? aliquid adnotationum 
addere Lexico, quod Zonaras adscribitur, constituissem, mox, 
ubi videram, quantum studii atque opera? huic rei impendisset 
Tittmannus V. S. R., melius consultum iri doctis hominibus 
putavi, si harum adnotationum loco diu desideratum Lexicon 
Photii exhiberem. Quod etsi non eram nescius fore, qui neque 

aliter, 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianm. 59 

aliter, quam ex ipso Codice Galeano, neque sic commentariis 
destitutum edi debuisse censerent, tamen etiam faturos sperabam, 
qui utcumque edito uti, quam usu eo prorsus carere mallent, 
praesertim si cognovissent, his, quae in notis ad Hesych. ex eo 
Lexico proferuntur, non posse ubique fidem haberi. Adnota- 
tionum autem copia librum augere nee volebam, quum propter 
alias caussas, turn quod hie liber ipse appendicis loco esset, nee, 
si voluissem, per temporis brevitatem potuissem. — Haec igitur 
apographa ita sequutus sum, ut ubique eorum quamvis vitiosam 
saepe scripturam fideliter servarem, nee nisi rai issime aliquid mu- 
tationis admitterem : quod ubi factum est, sic est factum, ut 
minus verear ne factum, quam ne plerumque non factum repre- 
hendi possit. Ita enim existimabam, qui Photio uterentur, malle 
debere singula quemadmodum apud eum scripta essent, quam 
emendata cognoscere. Sunt autem plerique errores ex eo genere, 
ut non possint nisi imperitissimos fallere, veluti quum p. 38.3. in 
v. Xkiqqv legitur, jw,s0' ov <p-go^svoo eg 'AxgonoXews h<jjiv oLtottov, ubi 
quis tarn hebes sit, qui non vide at Photium scripsisse, ^=0' ov 
<pegoy,£vov l£ 'Axg07r6\ew$ e$ rivet tokov ? Prasterea, quum plu aque 
omnia, quae Photius habet, etiam ap. Suid. Hesych. Harpocr. 
Timaeum, Etym. aliosque extent, his sponte usurum confidebam, 
qui Photium inspiceret: quare plerumque necommemoiandos 
quidem hos scriptores putavi." 

4. The Reviewer has thrice stated that Hermann speaks of 
" the blunders, which he has left in the text, being too palpable 
to need any correction" — of " the errors being such, as can only 
mislead the most stupid of mankind" — of "the errors being 
such, as can deceive none but the most stupid," whereas Her- 
mann does not say that all " the blunders" — all " the errors" 
are of this description. His words are, Sunt autem PLERIQUE 
errores ex eo genere, ut non possint nisi imperitissimos lal ere." 

5. The Reviewer, not content with making this false state- 
ment three times, even reasons on it : " we must still detain our 
readers, while we briefly examine the validity of Mr. Hermann's 
excuse for publishing an uncorrected text, viz. that the errors 
are such, as can only mislead the most stupid of mankind." 

6. " Of many, indeed," he adds, " this may truly be said.'" 
Very good, Sir, — what more has Hermann himself said ? and 
what credit can be due to the Reviewer for merely proving in 
opposition to Hermann the truth of what Hermann himself has 
said ? The Editors have already had frequent occasion to point 
out the crooked reasoning of this Reviewer, and so the subject 
may now be dropped. 

In taking leave of the Reviewer's notice of Photii Lexicon +, 

f A word or two more on this topic will be said in the Preface to this Reply. 

the 



60 Aristarchus Anti-Blor/tficldianus. 

the Editors will merely remark that, notwithstanding " the un- 
corrected text" of Photius, the literary world is under great ob- 
ligations to Hermann for having published the work, and that 
if Hermann had been disheartened from publishing it, be- 
cause Porson had "preoccupied the field," scholars would 
for the last ten years have been deprived of the use of it, and 
it does not seem to be a matter of certainty that the public 
are to be put into the possession of Porson's transcript of the 
Galean MS. 

But to return to the personalities, in which Mr. Blomfield has 
indecorously indulged, respecting the German scholars, the 
Editors have understood that Mr. Blomfield supposing himself 
to be the injured party, wrote a Letter of complaint to Professor 
Hermann, who replied at considerable length. They cannot 
help expressing a wish that the correspondence may soon be 
published, that the literary world may come to a decision on this 
question. 

The Reviewer complains not only of Mr. Hermann himself, 
but of " his School."" It is doubtful whether he means generally 
Mr. Hermann's admirers', or, more strictly speaking, men w T ho 
have been his pupils. Whatever may be his meaning, the Edi- 
tors altogether deny the truth of the proposition, that " Mr. Her- 
mann and his School never miss an opportunity of lavishing their 
censure on Porson," and on his English followers. They have 
been careful readers of German publications, and have never 
met with any unfair strictures on Porson, or on his School, un- 
less they be contained in what Mr. Hermann has written about 
Mr. Kidd, as above stated, or in what Mr. Reisig (a pupil of 
Mr. Hermann, who says of him in Elem. Doctr. Metr. 129- 
optima, spei juvenis, see also p. 134.) has written in the preface 
to his Conjectanea in Aristophanem p. xxx. " Damoxeni ver- 
borum emendationem p. 36. Ttuqari^^i o-vp7rorou$ } prseoccupavit 
Porsof Adversariis p. 213. Lips. Ex recentibus cseteris do- 
ctissimorum Anglorum libris Mus. Crit. Cantab, usurpavi, pras- 
terea nihil. Monki Hippolytum quasi prceteriens inspexi : 
JLlmsleyi Heraclidas vix evolvi nuper : in Gaisfordi Hephae- 
stione, bono opere, ut fertur ne verbum quidem legi : Blomfieldi 
scripta non expeto." But, as Mr. Blomfield almost as frequently 
dips his pen in gall, as in ink, it is not for him to complain of 
being slighted by foreign scholars, or of being roughly treated by 
a veteran critic in the Jena Review, or to magnify any attack, 
which was levelled at himself alone, into an attack on " the noble 
army" of English scholars, or the band of Invincibles conducted 

■f Mr. Reisig uniformly writes Porso for Porson. 

by 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 6 1 

by himself i*. " Huius (Porsonis) addictus auctoritati JBlomfiel- 
dus vere iudicavitin Mus. Crit. Cant. 2, 183. esse a '§styj repo- 
nendum in Supplicibus v. 606. Quin etiam est, ubi ipsi libri 
ve teres rei huic suffragentur. Verum multo tamen magis anti- 
quissimi quique ac probatissimi libri ad ov [xol et id genus alia 
tuerida conclamant. Quo magis mirandum est, Porsonem in 
o! 'pol propensum fuisse, veluti in Hecuba 338. Phoen. 641. 
praeeunte Brunckio, quum aliis in locis, turn ad Ran. 46 1 . et ad 
Oed. T. 939-: quo quamvis universis repugnantibus libris suo 
Brunckius arbitrio 0! Vi^eogw* in locum scripti ov Tn^wgioi intru- 
sit. Enimvero ubi casus dominatur, non certa ratio, nihil po- 
test quicquam constanter geri. Quamobrem illud in hac caussa 
Porsoni accidit, ut ne superiori instituto suo congruenter ageret, 
quia summam rei non perspexerat. Contra laudandus est Elms- 
lews ob iudicii firmitatem, quod a Porsonis auctoritate discessit 
in Mus. Crit. Cant, 0, 26. ov 'v scribens pro ol V Reisig. in 
Syntagmate Critico de Constructione Antistrophica Triivm 
Carminum Melicorum Aristophanis p. 24. " Denique his unum 
addam hoc. Contingit mihi tandem aliquando, summa G. Her- 
manni liberalitate, P. Elmsleii Acharnenses perlustrare, non 
minus a me diu exoptatum quam rarum in Germania librum. 
Gaudeo vero me in nonnullis rebus, quas in Conjectaneis potis- 
simum exprompsi, cum eo iudicii societatem opportune coiisse 
quamvis inscientem. Nunc tamen notandus mihi est vir prce- 
clarus, quod &j<reo 'v conatus est in Equites 367, tovtov 'v in Nub. 
592., suo arbitratu introducere, in Addendis : qua) prorsus bar- 
bara esse censeo." Idem ibid. 26. " Neque video, cur disce- 
dendum sit ab antiquo more scribendi [aovq-tiv, o-ovq-t)v, quem et 
optimi quique libri tuentur, et Grammatici probaverunt. Am- 
biguitas enim nota ilia et pervagata, in qua laboraruntnonnulli, 
non potuit magni momenti in hac re esse Grascis, uti ante iam 
dictum est. Quare laudandus Elmsleius est, quod tenuit earn 
formam annotatione ad Soph. Ajac. 1225., in Mus. Crit. Cant. 
4, 485.. Ad illud rov<pao-xsv, pro toi e<pu<rxev, accedit aliquid per- 
suasionis ex Vesp. 599- aKKoi. Oeaogoe, xctiroi 'gt\v avr,q Eu$Y)y.iov 
ov$h eXMTTcov. Ita est in antiquis libris typis impressis. Ex MS. 
Rav. Invernizius prodidit xul ttov Vt/v: scribo xai tov<tt)v, et in 
hac re mecum veluti conspiratione facta consentientem vidi P. 
Elrnsl. ad Acharn. 6l 1." Ibid. 26. 

Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the total absence of 

1 ■ ' r — 

f " Where from the frequency of literary or social intercourse, a bond of union 
has been established among: a certain number of those, who are engaged in the same 
pursuits, it Cannot reasonably be expected that the faults and deficiencies of their 
several works should be mutually exposed to public censure, nor in regard to the 
best feelings of human nature ought it to be desired." Pref. to Mus, Crit 1. p. vi. 

any 



0<2 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

any intention on the part of Hermann "to lavish censure on 
Porson and his School," than the following extract from a Letter 
addressed to Mr. E. H. Barker, and dated Leipsic, Aug. 22, 
1816.:— 

" Nuper hie prodierunt Conjectanea in Aristophanem a Car. 
Reisigio scripta, adolescente excellentis ingenii, qui si ferocior 
adhuc est, etiam in populares tuos, velim excusationein eius 
suscipias. Nam ut nunc sint, qua? temerius et confidentius dicta 
sint eo in libro, tamen quis iuvenilem fervorem, ex quo olim 
prTclari fructus prodibunt, statim damnare volet? Egoquidem 
illud semper in adolescentibus diligo, quod nimium est ; sponte 
enim virilis aetas fluctus lllos componet. Sed in quibus parum 
est roboris, difficilius id accedere postmodo videas." 

The Editors proceed to consider the next charge, brought by 
the Reviewer against Prof. Hermann " and his School," that the 
En°~lish followers of Porson " are facetiously enough termed his 
disciples" Now the Editors say 1. that this charge is " unsup- 
ported," and, as they believe, incapable of being supported by 
fact. 2. That, if such an epithet be anywhere applied by fo- 
reign scholars to the English followers of Porson, a careful exa- 
mination of the passage will prove that the person, who has ap- 
plied it, meant to be neither "facetious," nor malicious, nor 
meant any thing more than Mr. Blomfieldt and the Editors 
mean by the followers of Porson, or the Reviewer himself 
means by "the school of Mr. Hermann," or Mr. Hermann him- 
self means by the sect of Porson. " Verumtamen quum ille Por- 
soni quosdam errores notavisset, contumeliis ab huius secta et 
conviciis, extremo inermium perfugio, exceptus est." Prsef. ad 
Elem. Doctr. Metr. p. xvi. Perhaps the Reviewer Avill take 
an early opportunity of acquainting the Editors with " the pro- 
per style and title," as Heralds would say, which belongs to him- 
self and his party. The Editors have heard of a Letter from the 
acute and the ingenious Mr. Elmsley, in which the followers of 
Porson were represented as constituting his church, and those, 
w r ho did not attach themselves to this party, as heretics. Would the 
Reviewer prefer this designation, which would, however, be a 
dereliction of the principles of his Master J, who subscribed to 

no 



f " Mr. Elmsley is, in his mode of criticism, a decided follower of Dawes and 
Porson." Review of Elmsley's Heraclidae, in Mus. Crit. 1, 134. 

| ** Amongst others, who paid their respects to theMss. of Pseudo-Shakspeare,, 
in Norfolk-St,, 11. P. was prevailed upon by a friend to visit them. After looking 
at them for a short time, R. P. turned aside to survey the window and the room. 
Astonished at this indifference, Mr. Ireland requested him to put down his name 
among those of believers in their genuineness. At first R. P. endeavoured to ex- 
cuse 



Aristarchus Anti-Blotnfieldianus. 63 

no articles of faith ? But the Editors ask with what grace the 
Reviewer can charge " Mr. Hermann and his School" withjirst 
applying to the English followers of Porson " the most extraor- 
dinary," the most " facetious," but the most malicious designa- 
tion of his disciples, when the Reviewer himself has elsewhere 
spoken not of the phrase his disciples, but of another, the Por- 
soriian School of Criticism, as being the only improper designa- 
tion, by which his party were known among those scholars, 
whom he considered to be opposed to himself, and the first use 
of which he was accustomed to father on the venerable Dr. 
Parr ? and when Dr. Butler, in his Letter to Mr. Blomfield con- 
taining Remarks on the Edinburgh Review of the Cambridge 
Aeschylus p. 7-, has twice applied to Porson's followers the 
very appellation of Ms disciples, and again in p. 13. says: — 
" But, while I grant his (Porson's) transcendent merits, why 
should his disciples, with that system of exclusion, which they so 
generally adopt, admit nothing to have the least claim to atten- 
tion, which is not of the Porsonian School, teaching of their 
great Master, like the Epicureans of old, that 

omnes 
Restinxit, Stellas exortus uti ietheriue sol ? " 

and when the Reviewer himself, in the Notice of Monk's Hip- 
polytus, (Quarterly Review, No. 15, p. 226.) has said: — "This 
he owes, in part, to his initiation into the School of Porson*' 7 

" One reason of the predilection, manifested by critics of the 
present day for the remains of the Greek Drama, may perhaps 
be found in the eminent success, which attended the editorial 
labours of Mr. Monk's illustrious predecessor, who presented 
the world with an almost immaculate text of the first four Plays 
of Euripides. To attempt a description of the line of criticism, 
which the late Professor chalked out for himself, would be su- 
perfluous, since his publications are in the hands and memories 
of every one, who pretends to the name of scholar : but perhaps 
it may not be amiss to say a few words on what some persons 
call * the Porsonian School of Criticism/ as it is asserted that 
Professor Monk, amongst others, has been bred up within its 
precincts. We should be extremely happy, if any of those gen- 
tlemen, who are most in the habits of using the phrase, would 
state to us distinctly, in what points 'the Porsonian School' 

cuse himself as not being an English antiquary. At length, being importuned in 
a most pressing manner, he said : * Mr. Ireland, I detest from the very bottom of 
my heart subscriptions of all kinds, but especially subscriptions to articles of faith.' 
R. P.'s friend turning to him said : 'Mr. P., vou will always be an humourist.'" 
Mr. Kidd's Outline of the Life of R. P. p. xviii. 

differs 



f>4 Aristarchus Anti-Blomfkldianus. 

differs from any other school of true criticism. The peculiar 
characteristics of the style of annotation adopted by its founder 
are I. a reluctance to make innovations in the received text 
without strong reasons and sufficient authority ; 2. the frequent 
and effectual use of analogical reasoning ; 3. a brief and perspi- 
cuous method of stating the arguments for and against any read- 
ing. Iivthe first of these points the practice oi' Porson differed 
widely from that of Scaliger, Bentley, Reiske, Brunck, and even 
Hemstcrhuis and Ruhnken. In the second point he pushed to 
its full extent a mode of criticism, first effectually exercised upon 
the dramatic writers by Richard Dawes f. In the third his 
practice is original, and forms a singular contrast to that of 
Valckenaer. If, therefore, his style of criticism differs from that 
of other scholars, it differs with an excellence, as the gramma- 
rians say ; and unless forbearance from innovation, accuracy of 
reference, brevity, and perspicuity of language be accounted 
faults, we are justified in saying that 'the Porsonian School' is 
but another term for the best school of Greek criticism." Blom- 
field's Review of Monk's Hippolytus, in the Quarterly Review, 
No. 15, p. 216. for Sept. 1812. 

Whether the Porsonians be denominated " followers, of Por- 
son," or " his Disciples," or " his Sect," or " his School," or 
" his Church," is a matter of little moment, provided that it be 
clearly understood who are the persons thus designated, and 
provided that the terms are not used as terms of reproach. It 
is evident that the Porsonians have marked out themselves as 
" a peculiar people," For Mr. Blomfield, in his Review of 
Elmsley's Heraclidae, in Mils'. Grit. 1, 134. says that "Mr. 
Elmsley is in his mode of criticism a decided follower of Dawes 
and Porson," and p. 135. that, "if the Porsonian style of criti- 
cism be exerted by others with the same success as by Mr. 
Elmsley," and in the Preface to the same No. p. vi. : — " Where 
from the frequency of literary or social intercourse, a bond of 
union has been established among a certain number of those, 
w T ho are engaged in the same pursuits, it cannot reasonably be 
expected that the faults and deficiencies of their several works 
should be mutually exposed to public censure, nor in regard to 
the best feelings of human nature ought it to be desired." 

The Reviewer, after having observed, that " Mr. Hermann 



f "The Rev. Dr. Davies, late Provost of Eton, when Head-Master, presented, 
R. P. with a copy of Toup's Longinus as a mark of his regard for a ' good' exer- 
cise. This book, R. P. was wont to say, first biassed his mind to critical researches, 
and Bentley and Dawes cherished and confirmed that strong propensity: the rest 
he gave himself." Kidd's Outline of the Life of R. P. p. xi. See too p. xxi. — 
Editors. 

(in 



Arutarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 65 

(in his Review of the New Gr. Thes.) has intermixed a few 
trivial objections, extorted from him by a sense of decency, 
amongst several pages of the most fulsome and unsupported, 
though, the Reviewer doubts not, unbought panegyric," and 
that " Mr. Hermann and his School never miss an opportunity 
of lavishing their censure on Porson, and on those English Scho- 
lars, whom they facetiously enough term For son's disciples" 
adds with the same temerity, that " it is, on the other hand, a 
sufficient title to their esteem to flatter the German critics at 
the expense of the English." The plain English of this con- 
cluding remark is that the secret clue to the history of those 
praises is to be found in the gross flattery, with which the Edi- 
tors have sprinkled "the German critics at the expense of the 
English." The absurdity of this insinuation is too great to re- 
quire any formal and elaborate refutation, particularly as Her- 
mann has said : — " Multo plura sunt, quae brevius dici et po- 
tuisse, et vero debuisse putemus. Eo referimus ilia potissimum, 
quae Editores praeter necessitatem ipsis verbis virorum docto- 
rum, quos auctores adhibent, adscripserunt. Nam etsi in uni- 
versum illud valde probamus, quod verba illorum potius, quam 
mentem exhibendam duxerunt, quo certius lectoribus de quaque 
re constaret, neque erroris aliqua suspicio subnasceretur : ta- 
men multo hoc cum delectu faciendum fuisse censemus, ne 
etiam ea aflferrentur, quibus haud aegre carituri essent lectores. 
Eiusmodi sunt verbosae quaedam adnotationes Schweighaeuseri, 
quas hie repeti, ut p. 55, atque alibi, profecto inutile erat. Atque 
omnino laudanda quidem magnopere est asquitas ilia, quae in lit— 
teris non quis aliquid, sed quid quisque dixerit, spectandum pu- 
tat : sed ob hanc ipsam tamen caussam vellemus aliquot locis 
non esse promiscue quorumcunque hominum verba allata." 

And the Reviewer himself says in p. 347. : — " We must 
not omit to remark that the Editors manifest a commendable, 
impartiality in their quotations from contemporary Scholars, al- 
though they are disposed to speak in somewhat exalted terms 
of their own decrees. Mr. E. H. Barker is generally understood 
to be the chief, if not the sole, conductor of the present work ; 
and we could therefore have dispensed with such expressions, 
as, * vide omnino nos in Classical Recreations* — ' Recte E. H. 
Barker in Epist. Crit. ad Th. Gaisford' — * Errasse virum do- 
ctissimum ostendit E. H. Barker/ — ' Porsoni errorem notavit E. 
H. Barker.' " 

The same principle of " commendable impartiality," which 
has been exercised " in their quotations from contemporary 
Scholars," would actuate the Editors in citing their own publi- 
cations; and a more careful perusal of the New Gr. Thes. will 

F satisfy 



66 Arist archus Anti-Blomfleldianus. 

satisfy the Reviewer and the public, that in point of fact the Edi- 
tors have been as impartial in the one case, as in the other + . If 
the Editors were really persons, who thought and spoke as 
highly " of their own decrees," as the Reviewer on insufficient 
testimony asserts, and as the Editors themselves could more 
truly assert that Mr. Blomfield is in the habit of doing with re- 
gard to himself and his friends, is it to be supposed that, in re- 
plying to Hermann's Notice of their Work, they would have con- 
ceded to him so many strong points, and have been entitled to 
the praises, which are bestowed on them in the following Letters? 
" E. II. Barkero S. D. G. Hermannus. 

" Tu vero ne demitte animum. Nam ego quidem, nequeego 
solus, sed multi meorum popularium ita statuimus, etiam si nemo 
nunc apud inimicos tuos defensionem tui suscipiat, tamen eos- 
dem illos, qui nunc tibi male volunt, paullatrm eo adductum iri, 
ut et gratias tibi agant, et laudare potius merita tua, quam iis 
officere velint. Uteris, mihi crede, multo meliori sorte, quam 
qua usus est Porsonus. Non est enim invidenda ilia felicitas, 
aliquamdiu deum haberi, quern deinde tamen omnes mortalem 
fuisse fateantur. Multo melius est, per invidiam et obtrectatio- 
nem eo eniti, ut, cessante paullatim malevolentia, tanto magis 
splendeas, quanto magis antea obscurata? fuerint laudes tuas. Id, 
sat scio, tu maxime experiere. Me vero scito in iis esse, qui id 
non modo cupiant, sed etiam, quantum possint, efficere conaturi 
sint. 

" Quod scribis, te, ubi dissentias a me in iis, qua? in Censura 
Thesauri dixi, libere et ingenue protulisse, id laudo et gaudeo. 
Nunquam ego in illis fui, qui contradici sibi segre ferunt. Qui 
vitam vero inveniendo impendunt, discere debent quotidie ; et 
qui sapit, veritate reperta gaudet, sive ipse repererit, sive alius. 
Eamque ob caussam te valde amo, prasstantissime Barkere, 

f The Editors will favour the Reviewer with a sample of their candour. 

In the Lex. Voce, peregr. ccctiii. the Editors have admitted the word *Alyv- 
*rtoyivns* as well as * Alyu*roytvb$y and Schneider in the 3d Ed. of his Dictionary 
has acknowledged both. But there can be no doubt that A\yvie*uyiwis is a vox 
nihili, and the Editors would with pleasure have cited the following observations 
of Mr. Blomfield, if they had recollected them, while they were writing the arti- 
cle in question :— 

" As a similar instance, is adduced Alywxrnoyivvn from the Persa? 35. where 
Brunck, as Schutz remarks, '■ acutely observes that Atyvrnoytviis is a word of five 
syllables, as in Eur. Phcen. 684. tvnX'moi is so to be pronounced, that kiem shall 
form a Trochee.' This latter passage Musgrave has corrected by reading zuiiXetot, 
and it is surprising that Brunck, Schutz, and Mr. Butler, with the reading of the 
Cod. Mosq. and Turnebus before their eyes, viz. AtyuTrreytvht, as it is printed also 
by Porson, should have persisted in retaining a word, which, independently of its 
false metre, is an anomalous compound ; for we do not find KctSpuoyiw;, Kv*£io- 
yivhs, Jiovcnoyiwt, but * Kabpoytvbs, *K.ux£oyivtif i *2ovnymf" Edinburgh Review 
of Dr. Butler's Aeschylus, No. 29. p. 158. 

quod 



Aristarchus Anti-BlomJieldianu$. 67 

quod video te a partium studio alienissimum esse, et non minus 
aequo animo ferre dissentientes, quam ipsum libere sententiam 
dicere. Qui sic sentiunt, tutissima via ad veram laudem con- 
tendunt. Nunquam enim scientes errorem defendunt, quod est 
turpissimum, sed illud potius agunt, ut errorem, quantum pos- 
sint, ab se segregent. Tanto tu certius confide, Thesaurum 
tuum si non statim, at in dies magis iustos iudices habiturum. 

" Vale, mi Barkere, meque amare perge, ut ego te. 

" D. Lipsia d. xii. Jan. 1819" 

" E. H. Barkero S. P. D. G. Hermannus. 

" Non solum litteras tuas, amicissime Barkere, datas d. xv. 
Martii, sed etiam Responsionem tuam ad Censuram Thesauri 
accepi. Laudo, quod et defendisti te bene, et id ea cum huma- 
nitate fecisti, quam in te maximi facio. Quodque scripsisse me 
tibi memini, non modo me non asgre laturum, sed grato animo 
accepturum, quidquid tu contra me dicturus esses, id repeto 
nunc, quum legi, confirmoque etiam atque etiam. 

" Vale, carissime Barkere, meque, ut ego te, amare perge." 

That such expressions, as the Reviewer has cited, and others 
of a similar nature, do occur in their work, (and in whose work 
do not such expressions occur ?) the Editors admit, but are pre- 
pared to contend that the Reviewer's inference from them is most 
unfair. When the Editors have in a separate publication fully 
or largely discussed, (whether rightly or wrongly discussed, it 
is for the world to judge,) any controverted point, of which they 
are speaking in the Thes., they sometimes may have said, " vide 
omnino nos in Classical Journal ;" and when the question is of 
a less doubtful nature, or has been determined on proper evi- 
dence, they may sometimes have said, " Recte E. H. Barker in 
Epist. Crit. ad Th. Gaisford," " Errasse virum dpctissimum 
ostendit E. H. Barker," "Porsoni errorem notavit E. H. Bar- 
ker." While the Editors are by the Reviewer himself admitted 
to be impartial towards all " contemporary Scholars," no reason 
can be assigned why they should be unjust towards themselves 
alone. He, who, like the Editors, is impartial equally towards 
friends and towards enemies, will generally be found to be im- 
partial even towards himself; and he, who would cite a book, if 
its title-page had borne any other name, may without any violation 
of modesty cite it, though bearing his own. Every book, which has 
been published, will more or less prove the justice and the truth 
of these remarks. Surely the Reviewer will not censure Schaefer 
as "speaking in somewhat exalted terms of his own decrees/ ' 
because in the third Edition of Schneider's Lexicon v. *Z7ai- 
iotgruoo, unde *Z70H$agn)<n;, i), Jambl. V. P. 101. he writes thus, 

F2 



68 Aristarchus Anti-Blomfichlianus. 

" Zw. Vgl. meine Note in Kiessl. Ausg." or. because in -Her- 
mann's note on Soph. Electr. 434. he says : — " Cf. qua? nota- 
vimus Porsonus egoque ad Eurip. Hec. p. 46. Ed. Lips, alt." 
Mr. Blomfield, in the Review of Elmsley's Heraclida?, 1. c. 
p. 136., remarks that he "cannot help noticing the candor, with 
which Mr. Elmsley occasionally retracts his conjectures, when 
subsequent reflection has shewn him that they were unneces- 
sary." As the Editors have been equally candid, he will,no doubt, 
find some fit opportunity of passing the same encomium on 
them ; and, as he is such an admirer of candour in others, the 
Editors hope that he will now at length begin to adorn and dig- 
nify his own character with it, and, like the Editors, continue 
to practise it on all occasions, in his conduct towards his ene- 
mies, as well as towards his friends. 

The instance above cited is not the only one, in which the Re- 
viewer has unjustly charged Mr. E. H. Barker with a want of 
modesty : — 

"The INGENIOUS author of a volume of Classical Recrea- 
tions, (as he pleasantly terms them,) after having enumerated 
several schemes, which he is projecting for the good of the lite- 
rary commonwealth, complains, IN A TONE OF ASPERITY, 
that ' the present generation of critical Scholars seems to be so 
much occupied with the Greek Tragedians, that his undertaking 
will not, he fears, meet with the encouragement, which it deserves. 9 
On the MODESTY of this expostulation we shall offer no re- 
mark, nor are we inclined to dispute its truth. Certain it is, 
that, in the course of the last six years, no less than eleven edi- 
tions of various portions of the dramatic writers of Greece have 
been put forth in England, exclusive of mere reprints; and, un- 
less we mistake, the whole of the last century did not produce 
more than twelve or thirteen. What is worse, the evil seems by 
no means to be at an end : on the contrary, the Recreator has 
too much cause to look forward to the fulfilment of his appre- 
hensions. Professors Monk and Gaisford have taken Euripides' 
in hand ; Mr. Elmsley has given us specimens of his labours on 
Aristophanes and Sophocles, which make us earnestly wish for 
more ; while Dr. Butler and Mr. Blomfield are at work upon 
Aeschylus. In a word, the tide of public opinion seems to be 
set with the Greek Tragedians ; and to what extent we may be 
deluged with editions of them, we are quite unable to foresee. 
The only expedient, which we can chink of to check the stream 
is, for the complainant to publisi more Recreations, as a means 
of diverting the thoughts of s^.olarsfrom the channel, in which, 
at present, they flow. However lamentable the fact in question 

may 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 69 

may be, it is, we think, no difficult matter to account for it. Nor 
are we, by any means, disposed to wonder that many should be 
found, who are willing to devote their days and nights to the 
poets of ancient Greece, the characteristic features of whose 
compositions are, an elevation and originality of thought, and a 
nobleness of sentiment, the vehicle of which is the most copious 
and accurate language, of which any monuments are extant. 
For our own parts, we are inclined to think, that this paramount 
advantage results from the due admixture of classical studies, 
and particularly of the Greek Poets, in the education of youth ; 
— that their minds are directed betimes to a fund of lofty and 
dignified sentiment, rich imagery, and fine language, from an 
acquaintance with which they gain a manly and liberal mode 
of thinking, together with an elegance and correctness of expres- 
sion. We have, therefore, no hesitation in assigning to those 
scholars, who, as the results of their skill and labour, put into 
our hands editions of the Greek Poets, which we may read with 
ease and comfort, a more liberal share of praise than will be 
conceded to them by the author of Classical Recreations. 1 * Re- 
view of Monk's Hippolytus in the Quarterly Review, No. XV. 
p. 215. 

Here the Editors may exclaim with the Poet : — 

Who shames a scribbler ? break one cobweb thro', 
He spins the slight, self-pleasing thread anezo : 
Destroy his fib or sophistry y in vain, 
The creature 's at his dirty work again, 
Thron'd on the centre of his thin designs, 
Proud of a vast extent ofjlimsy lines ! 

1. The Reviewer insidiously prefaces his censures with an 
epithet of praise, wishing his readers to imagine that he had no 
secret malignity to gratify by commenting on an observation, 
made by the author of Classical Recreations. 

Aoyoc ft 6[jt,ou ph SvpiupaToov ys^zi, 

'OjXOU $£ 7T0HOLV00V T£ X.OM <TTeV0Lyi*.OXUJV, 

" To fair criticism I have no objection. It is against hypo- 
critical candour, against faint and i damtiing ' praise, against 
wilful misrepresentation, against sly insinuation, against artful 
misquotation, that I denounce fierce and implacable war. The 
critic, who fairly meets me, who throws down the gauntlet, and 
boldly bids defiance to his adversary, will never find me a sullen 
enemy, if conquered, or an ungenerous one, if victorious. But 
I 'hate and loathe assassination, and I dare say you will feel un- 
comfortable at the bare mention of it." Dr. Butler's Letter to 

the 



70 Aristarchm Anti-Blomfieldianus. 

the Rev. C. J. Blomfield, containing Remarks on the Edinburgh 
Review of the Cambridge Aeschylus, p. 13. 

The keen penetration of Mr. Elmsley, however, could not be 
deceived by that affectation of candour and impartiality. The 
gutta serena of praise was not big enough to hide the cataract 
of censure. At the end of the Review are inserted "A few 
Additions to the Remarks on the three Tragedies of Euripides 
edited by Markland," which Mr. Elmsley had written in the 
previous No. of the Quarterly Review ; and, as Mr. E. was appre- 
hensive that Mr. E. H. Barker would naturally be led from that 
circumstance to attribute to his pen the Review of Monk's Hip- 
polytus,he kindly wrote a Letter to Mr. Barker, in which he said 
that the Review was not written by him, but was most probably 
written by some one, to whom Mr. Barker might have given 
offence in some of his publications. This was the substance of 
Mr. Elmsley's communication ; and therefore it is evident that 
Mr. E. considered the article in question to have been the work 
of an enemy to the author of the Classical Recreations, — the 
effusion of malice. Mr. Barker's observation about " the pre- 
sent generation of critical Scholars being so much occupied with 
the Greek Tragedians," merely " serves as a peg " for this ma- 
lignity. 

2. The Reviewer has falsly and maliciously stated that Mr. 
Barker " complains in a tone of asperity that the present gene- 
ration of critical Scholars seems to be so much occupied with 
the Greek Tragedians, that his undertaking will not, he fears, 
meet with the encouragement, which it deserves." For Mr. 
Barker has not " complained in a tone of asperity," and in point of 
fact says not a word more or less than what the Reviewer has 
cited. What proof can he there find of " asperity?" It is like 
the seventh No. of the Mus. Grit, advertised indeed, but not 
forthcoming. Mr. Barker has merely made a remark, which is 
perfectly true, and the " truth" of which the Reviewer himself 
" is not inclined to dispute " — he has made this remark in no 
" tone of asperity," and never meant to indulge any such feeling 
about the matter. 

3. The Reviewer says that " on the modesty of this expostu- 
lation, (viz. that 'the present generation of critical Scholars seems 
to be so much occupied with the Greek Tragedians, that Mr. 
Barker fears that his undertaking will not meet with the encou- 
ragement, which it deserves,') he shall offer no remark." The 
Editors will, however, venture to rush in, where that Angel fears 
to tread, and assure the reader that there was no occasion for 
any "remark" from the Reviewer, because there was no viola- 
tion of modesty in using the word deserves* Any work, which 

no 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 71 

no one can deny to be useful, may without any impropriety be 
said by the person, who undertakes it, '5* to deserve encourage- 
ment." In using such or similar expressions, the person looks 
only to the utility of the work, not to the skill of himself as the 
architect ; and if he does not look to the skill of himself as the 
architect, whatever may be his deficiencies as the architect, 
his "modesty" can no more be called in question for saying 
that " his work will not, he fears, meet with the encouragement, 
which it deserves" than the utility of the work itself. The late 
Lord Stanhope wished to abridge the Statutes ; no man could 
deny the utility of the undertaking ; and, if he had published any 
proposals for printing the work by subscription, and had said 
that " he was fearful lest the work would not meet with the en- 
couragement, which it deserved," no man, whose understanding 
was not as crooked, whose heart w T as not as envenomed, whose 
pen was not as full of gall, as the Reviewer's, would think of 
charging the noble proposer with a violation of decorum, or a 
want of modesty. The New Gr. Thes. is a work, which " de- 
serves encouragement ;" and, as no man but the Reviewer would 
be disposed to question its utility, so all the world but the Re- 
viewer would allow the Editors to speak of it as " deserving 
encouragement " without subjecting them to the charge of want- 
ing " modesty.". 

4. The Reviewer evidently wished his readers to entertain the 
same mean opinion of the Classical Recreations, which he pro- 
fessed to have himself, and to shew how different Mr. Blomfield's 
secret and real opinions were from those, which he publicly and 
anonymously professed, the following Letter to Mr. Barker will 
suffice : — 

" Dear Sir, 

" I beg leave to return you my best thanks for your 1st volume 
of Classical Recreations, and consider myself much honoured 
by the large portion of it devoted to my book. 1 shall always 
be happy to have my deficiencies supplied by so able a hand. 
Your plan does not impose those limits upon your explanations, 
by which I am necessarily confined. You may probably per- 
ceive that, were' I to discuss every word oXeo SvXaxwf, my Edi- 
tion would no longer be accessible or readable to young students, 
so that I content myself with a specimen here and there of more 
copious annotation, by way of giving them a relish for the brevity 
of the remainder. I was certainly not aware that Spanheim had 

f * l Which the Editors seem resolved to pour out eXm SuXukco into this capacious 
reservoir." Quarterly Reviewer of the New Gr. Thes. p. 329.' "Quippe veritus 
sum nc modum excedeiet libellus, si ubique eum oAw <r*> Svh&KM conspergerem." 
Elomfield Piief. ad Aesch. S. c. Th. p. ix. 

anticipated 



Ti Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

anticipated me, (or nearly so, for he with his usual metrical 
skill reads Ak^vvfi uxtyiv re,) and I am obliged to you for the infor- 
mation. 1 have been guilty of a much worse fault of the same 
sort in the Glossary v. 721. in my fancied correction of some 
verses of Archilochus, which had been restored long before f 
by D. Heinsius Lect. Theocr. 223. Hemsterh. on Hesych. 
1, 959- It is extraordinary that Brunck did not know this. 
You have clearly knocked on the head my hasty conjecture of 
i7n£*jtxej/of, but are as clearly wrong in giving a middle force to 
efagTYjpevoi. My explanation is quite right, I belie,ve. Laro 
suspensi loculos tabulamque lacerio is nearly similar. I have no 
doubt but that in my forthcoming Play you will discover many 
more errors and omissions, as I cannot now have immediate re- 
course to every book, of which I stand in need. I shall be very 
well pleased to have the former corrected and the latter supplied, 
as my object is to contribute in any way to the understanding 
[of] the Greek language, and to the promotion of classical 
studies, to which I am happy to see that you have devoted 
yourself with so much effect. 

" I remain, dear Sir, your faithful servant, 
" Chesterford, June 29th 1812. C. J. Blomfield." 

After this very handsome and kind Letter, 

(Antoni gladios potuit contemnere, si sic 
Omnia dixisset,) 

the Editors should have imagined that Mr. Blomfield not only 
would not travel out of his way to make an indirect attack on this 
very book, while reviewing Mr. Monk's Hippolytus, but would 
even studiously take occasion to notice it, sometimes praising and 
sometimes blaming it in the second Edition of his Prometheus, 
in the course of his Notes on the other Plays of Aeschylus, and 
in any other productions of his pen. But this has not been the 
case, though it is evident from his Letter that Mr. Blomfield 
could not have and in point of fact had not any just ground of 
offence at anything, which was said in the Classical Recreations 
respecting his Prometheus. 

5. Mr. Blomfield in the Letter just cited exhibits a perfect 
knowledge of the contents of the Classical Recreations, and there- 
fore it was a matter of astonishment to Mr. Barker to find Mr. 
Blomfield as the Quarterly Reviewer of Monk's Hippolytus 
(p. 228.) writing thus, " V. 393. r 'fl<rrs rov^uKiv wso-iiv yqzvwv, 



f The Editors arc happy to record this instance of " literary honesty" in Mr. 
Blomfield, particularly as the acknowledgment does not appear in the second Edi- 
tion of the Prometheus, which has been published since the date of this Letter. 

read 



Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 73 

read wot* &$ TofywraAiv," without making the smallest acknowledg- 
ment to the author of the Classical Recreations, at whose book 
he had at the commencement of the Review been ungenerously 
sneering, and who has in p. 0,54. proposed this very conjecture 
in these modest terms, " If I might venture to make a conjec- 
ture, I would propose wot elg rovfiiraXw Trsash (pgsvobv for wars 
To'vpnuXiv, which seems to me at least a very harsh expression." 
His illustrious friend Dr. Parr assured Mr. Barker that the cor- 
rection met with his decided approbation. Mr. Barker addressed 
a few lines to the learned and intelligent Editor of the Quarterly 
Review, complaining that, while the Reviewer of Monk's Hippo- 
lytus began his Notice with reflecting on the Classical Recre- 
ations, he ended it with giving as his own a conjecture, which 
Mr. Barker had proposed in that Work ; and in the reply he 
was informed by the Editor that he believed that there was a 
note referring to the Class. Recr., which the compositor had 
omitted to insert. Mr. Barker is of course bound to receive 
this statement on the authority of the Editor, but it appeared to 
him " a most extraordinary " fact that this material note refer- 
ring to the Class. Recr. should have been the only omission of 
the compositor, and almost incredible how the Reviewer could 
m the Text of his Notice give the conjecture as an original one 
of his own, and at the same time in the Note refer to the Class. 
Recr. as containing it. Perhaps the Reviewer will have the 
"commendable impartiality" and candour to tell the public 
what was the fact — whether he did, or did not refer to the Class. 
Recr. and in what words ? Well, great as Mr. Barker's asto- 
nishment was at all these circumstances, " still the wonder grew," 
when in the following Note of Mr. Blomfield on Aesch. Agam. 
905., he not only found the exploded reading in the verse of the 
Hippolytus silently retained, but found no reference to the 
Class. Recr., where three of the passages occurring in the Note 
are introduced, (see Class. Recr. 252 — 6l . 486 — 8.) 

" V. 905. Fvwpjv jU,ev 'IcrQi py 8iap0sgoDi/T ey,£. 
diutpQegovvT IfirS Edd. omnes. Porsonus conj. §iu$Qsgoii(r l/x,o/. 
Xenoph. Symp. 8, 20. '0 8e 7re/0wv t>jv rou otvuTrsitiopevov \!>y%>jj/ 
SiapMgs*. Vulgatum tamen quodammodo tueri videatur Eurip. 
Hippol. 39 1. Ova I'cr0' 07ro/w <ptxg(j,<xKcp footfQegelv "EpeXXov, wore 
TovfMr<x\iv TTeorslv <pgsvwv, l. e. ovx epeWov §ict<pQsgelv (pgeiotg. Item 
Hecub. 601. '0 8* e<rfab$, e<rQx.b$ 3 ouoe <rv(ji,<pogu$ uno <i>6(riv Sie^flgig', 
aXKu x§>]otoV ear as'r, Cf. Med. 105 1 . V erum tamen puto §i*q>fo- 
gov(r, quia?o-0< cum participio ad eum, qui compellatur, plerumque 
refertur. Vide Vaick. et Monk, ad Eurip. Hippol. 304. et ilium 
in Schol. ad D. Luc. 19, 18." 

See the New Gr. Thes. where the passage from the Agamemno 

is 



74 Aristarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 

is cited. Mr. Blomlleld in the Glossary says : " 905. dict<pQslpu) 9 
Corrumpo. Vide Notas." But from the Class. Recr. he might 
have learnt that it here signifies to change, and in fact he had 
himself so translated it before the appearance of the Class. Recr. 
in a Letter addressed to Mr. Barker from Chesterford Mar. 12, 
1812, where it is remarkable, that he silently adopts the reading 
axrr t'i$ ToupraAii/ in the verse from the Hippolytus, which he. 
thus translates : 

" Knowing therefore, as I did, all these things beforehand, it 
was not likely that by any drug I should be able so far to medi- 
cate (my mind) as to fall into the opposite sentiments of indiffe- 
rence- Jia$0eigsiv is properly to moisten, (Virgil uses corrumpere 
in the same sense,) to soften. Aesch. Agam. 934. JVcojxvjv ph 
Tcrflj pr) $iu$QegovvT e/jtg. Be assured that I will not change my 
resolution. Of. Eurip. Hec. 602. Tov(jt,7ru\iv does not necessa- 
rily imply the direct contrary, but a return back again to indif- 
ference." 

6. The reader will notice " the most extraordinary " fact that 
Mr. Blomfield has commenced his review of one book (Monk's 
JHippol.) with an ungenerous sneer at another, written by a 
scholar, (Mr. E. H. Barker,) whom he justly or unjustly, (and 
the public are by this time pretty well satisfied which adverb 
should be used,) considered to be his personal enemy ; and "on 
the modesty of" this conduct the Editors "shallofter no remark," 
but merely point out the admirable consistency, which he habi- 
tually observes in stepping aside to attack one author, while he 
is reviewing another. The Editors have already shewn that he 
has in the review of the New Gr. Thes. and in the Mus. Crit. 
digressed for the purpose of attacking the Greek compositions of 
Liebel, and that from the defects of his poetry he has by a new 
species of logic inferred "the nonsense" of his philology. 

The same Review of the New Gr. Thes. furnishes another 
example of such conduct in p. 348. : — 

" We have been informed that a similar work, (a Greek and 
English Lexicon,) has been undertaken by the author of a Greek 
Grammar, which he was pleased to term philosophical, but 
which undoubtedly was not philological ; and unless he has 
greatly improved in his perception of the genius of the language, 
and in his acquaintance with its writers, we augur but little good 
of [from] his enterprize." 

Hatred stirreth up strife, but charity cover eth a multitude of 
sins. A Reverend Reviewer with the characteristic benevolence 
of Christ, and in the pure spirit of the Christian religion, which, 
as a Minister of the Gospel, he is accustomed to preach, and 
should practise as well as preach, might have drawn a veil over 

the 



Arktarchus Anti-Blomjieldianus. 75 

the faults of Mr. Jones' Greek Grammar, and dwelt on some of 
its excellencies, if his optics had been large enough to discover 
them. One most distinguished Scholar, in the presence of one 
of the Editors, has repeatedly borne testimony to the general 
learning, extensive knowledge, and great acuteness of Mr. Jones, 
and, when it is considered that the wise, the great, and the good 
Sir Samuel Romilly confided to him the education of his sons, 
the public may rest assured that he is a man of no ordinary ca- 
libre. The Editors " shall offer no remark on the" puny wit of 
the Reviewer in saying, that Mr. Jones " was pleased to term 
his Greek Grammar philosophical ," but that undoubtedly it was 
not philological ;" for the Editors "have seldom seen more unfor- 
tunate attempts " at wit, than those which this hackney and flip- 
pant Reviewer is in the habit of making. But they " cannot help 
noticing" an instance of his curious logic in inferring the in- 
ability of Mr. Jones to write a good or useful Greek and En- 
glish Lexicon, because he has written a defective or bad Greek 
Grammar, and an instance of his gross indelicacy in condemn- 
ing by anticipation an unpublished work of Mr. Jones, when it 
is well known to Scholars that the Reviewer's deceased Brother 
was engaged in a similar undertaking, and when, from a previous 
part of the Review, there is good reason to suppose that the Re- 
viewer himself is proceeding to complete that work. All this is 
perfectly consistent with his general practice. 

In the Edinburgh Review he published a severe Critique on 
Dr. Butler's Aeschylus, and closed it with remarking that that 
edition was not calculated for the use of the student, but that 
something of a different kind was wanted f. In the excess of his 
"modesty" he did not add that he was himself engaged in pre- 

f '« The copious enumeration of various lections, which is contained in the critical 
commentary, will be of great utility to future Editors of Aeschylus ; but we cannot 
help observing, that, although we are now presented with a \ery useful mass of 
collectanea, the volumes before us can scarcely be termed part of a new editinn of 
Aeschylus. We will conclude our animadversions on the first volume with a sen- 
sible remark madeby Schutz in the preface to his Edition of this author, p. vii., who, 
it appears, afforded a singular instance of being convinced of a truth and yet act- 
ing in direct opposition to it. Tvupw "%ovrx p h tybait fiioi^trca: — 

"Tale Editionum genus, utut plurima in iisbona insint, propagando inter eru- 
ditos homines Gr. litterarum studio parum prodesse certe scio ; meli usque, quam- 
vis minus gloriose, de eo mereri arbitror, qui curent, ut correcta, quae merum te- 
xtual auctorum habeant, exemplaria, exiguo pretio venalia in manusstudiosorum 
veniant." Edinburgh Review, No. 29. p. 1 63. " The learned Editor is, we presume, 
himself aware, that the inconvenience, which attends the great size of his book, is 
such as to render it nearly uselsss to every one but an Editor; for we are inform- 
ed that, when he has published 7 thick octavo volumes of a corrupt text, he intends 
to publish an 8th containing the text according to his own notions, for which a 
subscription is, we hear, on foot." No. 38. p. 505. 

paring 



76 Aristarchus Anli-Blomficldianus. 

paring for the press an edition, whieh was to supply that great 
detect. Dr. Butler's prophecy has been fulfilled : — " I do verily 
believe this juvenile Reviewer is preparing an edition of Ae- 
schylus for the press himself, and that he has thought it advisable 
(a vile thought!) to make an attempt at securing a favourable re- 
ception for his own edition, by running down and undervaluing 
mine." A Letter to the Rev. C.J. Blomfield A. B. one of -the 
Junior Fellows of Trin. Coll. Cam., containing remarks on the 
Edinburgh Review of the Cambridge Aeschylus, and incidental 
Observations on that of the Oxford Strabo, p. 1 1. 

One memorable instance of similar logic, similar indelicacy, 
and similar malignity combined may be found in the Mus. Crit 
5, 152. But this precious morsel must be reserved to garnish 
the second part of this Reply. 



A CRITIQUE 



ON 

MR. BLOMFIELD'S EDITION OF CALLIMACHUS, 

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN. 
Which is contained in the Jena Review, No. 193, for October 1819. 



Mr. Blomfield, so renowned in England as the Editor of Ae- 
schylus, has been induced to undertake a new edition of Callima- 
chus, not from any particular preference for that author, not 
from any intimate acquaintance with his writings, or the age in 
which he lived, nor even from possessing any deep fund of criti- 
cal knowledge, (a circumstance often as operative in philological 
productions as fate itself,) but because the Ernesti edition was 
become very scarce in England. On this account the general 
plan of that edition was preserved, but so that the collection of 
remarks should follow the text. In these remarks those of Bent- 
ley are very properly given entire, those of Hemsterhuys and 
Ruhnken inserted in their places, those of other Editors very 
sparingly selected, and those of Spanheim as good as omitted ; 
and amidst all these are scattered the additions of the new Edi- 
tor, which it is our particular province to examine. After the 
Hymns and Epigrams follows Bentley's admirable collection of 
the Fragments, which by the addition of those of Spanheim and 
Ruhnken are increased from 460 to 511. The work concludes 
with the Ernesti Index, which though enlarged here and there, 
is still very far from giving any good idea of the language of Cal- 
limachus. 

We commence our task with the Hymns. In these the usual 
order is changed : the Bath of Pallas is placed after the Calathos 
of Ceres, on account of its elegiac form. The Editor erroneously 
supposes that this poem is one of those Elegies so highly valued 
by the antients, which procured Callimachus a place in the 
Alexandrine Canon. He did not reflect that those were written 
in the Ionic dialect, and their subjects were amatory. We con- 
fess ourselves unable to discover the poetical superiority attri- 
buted 



78 A Critique on 

buted to this above the other Hymns ; according to our ideas 
they are perfectly similar in the magnificence of the opening, in 
some insulated splendid passages, in many others spoiled by too 
much art, in learned allusions, and laboured expressions. How 
litrie Mr. B. is at home in the literary history of his poet, he 
himself betrays in his remark on Fragm. 108. p. 230. " ad A\- 
riovs refer." His own edition, p. 172, may teach him better. 

Two editions, of which no use had been made, offered them- 
selves for the correction of the text; the 1st edition of J. La- 
scaris, sine anno, and the 4th, which appeared in Venice 1555. 
The various readings of both, apparently given with accuracy, 
are ranged under the text. On the present occasion they have 
both proved perfectly useless, but we are thankful for at least 
knowing that they were so. 

The text of the present edition scarcely deserves that name ; 
it is a motley mixture of old, stubborn, stiff readings, of emen- 
dations from Bentley, Ruhnken, Ernes ti, and Brunck, selected 
without judgment, and attempted corrections of the Editor, which 
fail when regularly examined. We offer the following as proofs 
of this opinion. 

In the very beginning, Hymn in Jov. 3. respect for Bentley 
has misled the Editor to adopt his correction of ilrjXayovwv for 
TnjAoyovwv. But what have the Giants to do with the Macedo- 
nian district of Pelagonia ? On the contrary Callimachus calls 
them nyXoyovov;, because he might think the hackneyed term 
yyyevsis too common ; besides, he is fond of using the word wi\- 
Xb$ like lutum as the substance of every thing created, Fragm. 
133. and Ruhnk. Epist. Crit. p. 183. In the same way he has 
inconsiderately followed Brunck in Jov. 26. in reading ttoXvo-tiov 
for noXvo-Tsiov ; the very circumstance of Apollonius having re- 
jected the diphthong makes it most natural, from his known dis- 
similarity to Callimachus, that the latter preserved it. Ruhnk. 
Epist. Crit. p. 198. has told us of a similar passage. In Jov. 34. 
the M.SS. read xsufyxov etrco, and xevQpwv Icrco K%y\touov 9 for which 
Ernesti adopted the very objectionable alteration xsvQpwv s$ Kgy- 
Tuiov, because xsufljxwv is the rarer and more select word ! ! Mr. B. 
without further consideration coincides with this, and informs 
us from Homer and Euripides, that the expression ei$ xevQpwvot 
is allowable* Had he but consulted Steph. Thes. 2, 1600. (a 
book which by the bye he occasionally quotes at considerable 
length,) he would have seen that xsvdjxcov is a very common word, 
xevQpo$ one as ancient as it is rare. We have found it once in 
Homer, once ia Apollonius, once in Lycophro. But that Mr.B. 
does not deal rfmch in examples, his note to Hymn in Del. 322. 
is a most striking proof : — " 7rg)v ante infinitivum non ponitur 

nisi 



Mr. BlomfiehVs Callimachus. 79 

nisi antecedente accusative* expresso vel subaudito. Iliad 2,413. 
Exemplacitare infinitum foret." Thought and language are here 
strangely at variance. Equally astonishing is it that in Hymn 
in Dian. 14. he has preferred Ruhnken's ohtia$ to the old e\n- 
tsois, because the latter occurs no where else in Callimachus. 
We should doubtless lose the half of our poet, if this most un- 
critical principle were applied to his remains. But Mr. B/s 
conduct appears also disingenuous, in his wisely omitting to men- 
tion, that until his alteration the same word did occur in v. 43. 
Besides, he should have recollected the verb e»vasT/?e<r0flu in verse 
179, shawls m Iliad 9, 466., and the adverbial elvderes, II. 18, 
400. Od. 3, 1 18. 5, 107. 14, 240. 22, 228. As little reason was 
there for his stumbling at the elision of the alpha, since, where 
the cardinal numbers with a short alpha precede ero§, the change 
of &exasTijj- and Sexer^j, irevraerrjs and iKvrkn^ 9 &c. are sufficiently 
known. Only change the accent, and read with both the old 
editions dversug. In Dian. 32. Ruhnken has again misled Poi- 
son's too credulous scholar, who evidently supposes that xou and 
8e cannot be tolerated in the same sentence, though Abresch and 
Scruefer had long ago proved by examples that this opinion is to- 
tally unfounded. 

A purer feeling of the language of Callimachus would have 
preserved Mr. B. from Brunck's very flat vo-Tsgov alflPuov in Dian. 
109. ; Juno wished that the golden-horned stag should cost Her- 
cules his life, should therefore be his vo-tutov uefaiov. On the 
alteration in Jov. 68. also after Brunck, it is needless to say a 
word. On the other hand the Editor ought to have adopted 
without hesitation the reading of Ruhnken in Dian. 159. #gu- 
yiys Trsg hr o<Pgv<n, and in Del. 172. the uVraTovof Ernesti. 

On other occasions the Editor appears (and it is often only 
appearance) to come forward with his own corrections. The 
true explanation of Hymn in Jov. 65. belongs not to him, but to 
the excellent Stephanus, Avhom Ruhnken has made to say what 
the poor man never thought of. The note at. Hymn in Apoll. 
36. thus modestly begins, " Constructionem nemo unus inter- 
pretum perspectam habuit ;" and then comes the translation, 
which Anna le Febre and Ernesti had given long before Mr. B. 
We were, indeed, agreeably surprised by the real and genuine 
learning displayed in the remark on Hymn in Jov. 80., until we 
recollected having already seen it all in Wesseling's Dissert. 
Herod, p. 24. In the same way Mr. B. appeared in Epigr. 
14, 1. to have surpassed himself; but we soon found that the 
one half was borrowed from Valck. on Theocr. 7, 1 1 ., the other 
from his illustrious countryman Gaisford on Hephaest. p. 47. 

But 



80 A Critique on 

But we hasten to the proofs of the Editor's own critical tact 
and qualifications. We are particularly annoyed by a consider- 
able number of passages, where the text is at variance with the 
remarks. This proves at least an uncertainty and indecision, if 
not negligence and haste. Whenever the Editor made an open 
and violent attack on the text, and did not immediately and fully 
satisfy himself of the grounds of his selection, his annotations 
should have made good what the first warmth of criticism had 
spoiled, but which remaining as it now does, disfigures like an 
unseemly scar the ill-treated poet. Such passages are ad Jo v. 
47.— Apoll. 4. 7. 14.23.— Dian. 108. 151.244.— Del. 14.249. 
268. — Pall. 141. In a few instances, however, he has turned 
back for the worse: in Apoll. 7. he reads jcAvjTSej.in the text; 
in the addenda he barbarously alters it to xAvji'Sef. As little rea- 
son was there for thrice changing the Doric ju,wvo£, in Doric 
poetry, into povvog. 

Of the remarks on the general use of words, of which there 
are but few, some deserve praise, as that on roiog yag, in Dian. 
146., on positives followed by a genitive, after the manner of su- 
perlatives, in Dian. 255., (where, however, the most ancient and 
common examples 11a $=dwv, and 87a yvvaMwv might as well have 
been not omitted,) and that on u^orsgov joined with masculine 
or feminine substantives in Cer. 79. 

By far the greater part, however, teems with that obscurity, 
which is the inseparable attendant of hasty presumption in an 
undertaking, for which it is unqualified. Thus in Jov. 52. and 
Epigr. 5, 5. the identity of ovXo$ with the Lat. vehemens is sup- 
posed to be proved ! ! Thus he torments himself in Jov. 55. on 
the intransitive hga$e$, without coming to any conclusion, and 
without thinking on either of those grammatical passages, which 
Heyne has collected on II. 21, 279- Vol. 8. p. 167. In Apoll. 
10. and Pall. 25. it is recommended to write in future Xsitos, 
e'lpurlov, Xzmagziv, (yes, and psixgos and u.sixog, on account of the 
compar. /xs/wv,) because forsooth grounds plausible at least can 
be adduced from the history of the Greek Alphabet, and from 
Inscriptions. 

That 7rpo£o\Yi$ in Dian. 99* is the true reading for 7rpoy.o\Yi$ is 
most probable. But the gold has its alloy ; 7rgoy,o\v) is with a 
stroke of the pen expunged from the Greek language, and where- 
ever it is found, 7rgo§oAq is recommended in its stead. It is true 
that 7rgopoh.Y) is formed analogically, that Mr. B. knows ten pas- 
sages in which it occurs, that its meaning is quite satisfactory 
in all these ten passages ; it is, however, condemned without . 
pity, and all the ten passages are corrected at one stroke. A 

sentence 



Mr. Blo?nfie!d's Callimachus* 81 

sentence equally arbitrary is pronounced in Pall. 72. on the 
length of the iota in adjectives terminating in ivosf; all these 
must have the penult, short, and where a word protests against 
this absurd rule, the pruuing-knife of criticism soon puts him to 
silence. If a general rule be made on either side, there is great 
probability that the contrary one, to which Graefe on Meleag. 
73. 91- H2. inclines, would be correct ; partly from the analogy 
of very many substantives in ivo$, and almost all verbs in ivco, and 
partly from such proper names, as Kallinos, Philinos, iEgina, 
and others, which Byzantine barbarism and ignorance have at 
different times shortened. But of those adjectives Ruhnk. Ep. 
Crit. p. 165. and afterwards Jacobs' Anthol. Palat. Vol. 3. p. 602« 
have given the only true account. We shall however again have 
occasion to remark, that a knowledge of prosody is not one of 
the ornaments of this Callimachus. 

Let us now turn to the numerous alterations, or, as they are 
called, emendations of the Editor himself, and we shall find the 
proportion of the good to the useless and faulty not greater than 
we found among his remarks on the use of words. Only the 
seven following passages appear to us to be really changed for 
the better : in Jov, 36. fisrtx ys Zrvyx r$ <Pik6griv re, for {asto. ts 
Xrvyv. <Pikv§Yjv re, as Gottiing had already corrected the passage 
ten years before : in Apoll. 10. og fuv thv for. o$ piv Tfy: in Dian. 
4. (also in Fragm. 1, 3.) aq^svm, w$ — , for ugxopsvoi, on the au- 
thority of the Etym. M. ; in Del. 11. ut§q$o$ for oirqanos, (an 
epithet of a desert island) for the discovery of which the learned 
had long labored in vain : in Del. 25. M pixjfc for utto pmr\s : in 
Del. 35. irqe^vo^ev for vrgupvoQev, the most ingenious of all his 
emendations. On Pall. 52. Graefe on Meleag. 43. p. 80. had 
long ago given the true correction. 

Besides these seven, we look on the three following hints as 
not unworthy of a closer examination : in Dian. 35. <re with the 
accent : in Del- 1 44. Sagpua-Tgou for fagpmmptd i and 32$. 
'Jarnj c» vfitrmv, eu/o-ns, — : instead of eui<rrie, as ratio inversa of 
*I§og "A'i§.os and Avriragis. As we know of no formation com- 
pletely analogical, and in the usual reading no offence is commit- 
ted against the Ionic Dialect, the question would be whether 
Callimachus did not wish to make an allusion to evzvrco without 
losing the gradation of 'Jcrnrj, and the play of sounds, which is 
•0 much in his manner. We are therefore not disinclined to 
retain the original #yi<ms, and release it from the " doubtful," 
with which it is marked in the Dictionaries. 



f 1 think the Reviewer has misunderstood, or misrepresented the Editor.— 
Note or thk Translator. 

G On 



S2 A Critique on 

On the other contents of the book we would gladly be silent* 
but it is our duty to give a complete portrait of our critic, and 
some principal features are still wanting ; we must therefore 
add such proofs of his uncritical or overcritical talents, as may 
be necessary to this end. 

In Hymn in Jov. 56, a doubt is raised on 6%v$ uvv\%ifi<rag } be- 
cause awficiv means repuerascere, which, it seems, is a sufficient 
reason for its rejection. At v. 6?. Kc*$to$ is "nomen Jovis sa- 
tellitis ; " and is followed by " © kki %k\a$ zlorao li$gw" For 
this the Editor offers us a true Scholastic emendation ofav, &c. 
•Was he unacquainted with o as signifying a cause, or with the 
relative after kglI ? He might have found both in Eurip. Hec. 1 3., 
and the requisite remarks of Valckenaer and Porson. At v. 73. 
the poet says to Jupiter, " <rb 8* gjjsAso nroKidqx 0X) S Avtou$." Mr. 
B. wishes to introduce wroWg^ouj 2uvto>, the expression and 
the meaning equally unpoetical. Ernesti has briefly and truly 
remarked, " in emphasi est ctvrovg, ut in ipsejftos apud Cicero- 
nem" At v. 83. IQuveiv M ctkqXiyis is changed into Itu crx., with- 
out any reason, and even contrary to the meaning of the word: 
At v. 94. utysvog must make way for ufyzvov ; and why ? because 
an the second verse after comes a<pivoio. But we know Mr. 
B.'s fondness for similarity On other occasions : in Aesch. 
Sept. adv. Theb. 870. and Pers. 49-, he has given such proofs 
of it, that this did not surprise us. 

At Hymn in Apoll. 47- &vy tracts is with some appearance of 
reason put for ^euy^TiSaj <Wous. But as Callimachus himself 
twice uses x°$ Tl $ m Di an - 13. ana * in Del. 306. (and here too 
the Editor in spite of Ruhnken's warning has introduced his 
%oglTi$), as Nonnus Dionys. 16, 125. in his imitation repeats 
the same reading, and in addition to this Hesych. 1, 1582. ac- 
knowledges fyvyYjTYis, it seems beyond a doubt that in all these 
three passages Mr. B. has overlooked his poet's well-known pre- 
ference for the more rare form, and has destroyed three attempts 
to introduce an antiquated expression. Thus p,ufyr^ and fxu- 
QItyis stood at each other's side in the Ionic Dialect, vide Creu- 
zer's Symbolik and Mythol. Part ] . p. 49. new ed.— At v. 50. 
Bentley read Asvoivto figs<pewv e-TnfAYixoLScg for |7np)A«Se£. The si- 
tuation of the preposition displeases our Editor (although he 
luckily did at last get to it in Jov. 44. and Fragm. 463.), and 
he proposes hi pjxaSsg; or 'EniwXlfcs, explaining this latter to 
be " nymphse circa ovilia versatas," a reading which renders the 
passage quite absurd. Ernesti has restored the true reading ${/,- 
/xvj^aSej from Heyschius. V. 70. is divided thus, 

avToig lyco KagveioV e^o) 7TUTgcuiQV' outoj 
J5WgT>)* <roi ? Kctgviie, Tods ngoiTivTOV eSe^Aov. 

Whoever 



Mr. Blomfield's Callimackus. 83 

Whoever can burden an Alexandrine Poet with such csesuras, 
should not pity, to say nothing more, the " aures minus politas" 
of our Reiske. 

We may pass over the empty dissertation on Hymn in Dian. 
69* (where Valckenser long ago pointed out the truth,) as it falls 
to pieces of itself, in order to notice once more at 211. the Edi- 
tor's prosodiacal criticism, which appears to be his hobby-horse. 
All the MSS. give, KaK^v 'AvrlxXsiuv "ktov <poLes<r<ri <p<Avjcrai, and 
no one objected to it. Mr. B. saw deeper than others, and cor- 
rects it to <pd$<r(ri, spoiling at the same time a passage in Mo- 
schus. As proofs he refers to the terminations of v. 71. & 182. 
sn) Qciscri ^dpccs, and t« $s <pa=« ^xvvovToti. He would have 
made a similar attack on Nicandri Alex. 84.; but Alex. 24. 
Ah) 8' lx cpaecDv vorsoov uvoXsiSsTou Itigoos, and above all Nicand. 
Ther. 720. M/jxvef ojuco?, toL 8' ei/=gfle <parj Ono $om<r<rovToii, might have 
astonished him, and perhaps brought him to his senses. The 
old writers on prosody, whom Spitzner de Versu her. p. 23. has 
collected, knew perfectly well, that in this word the alpha is 
short : it is used long only in the trisyllables, which properly form 
a tribrach, and therefore would be useless in hexameters, and 
here the exaltation of the verse comes to its aid. Thus what 
Maltbyin Morell'sLex.Prosod.p. 1025. has dreamed of the dif- 
ferent length of syllables according to their meaning, falls to the 
ground. The Homeric use of clog, on which we have elsewhere 
spoken more at length, exhibits the most complete analogy. At 
v. 227. where the Editor has again stumbled at an antiquated 
word, Steph. Thes. 1, 1424. might avert the knife of criticism ; 
and again at v. 267, where to improve the verse dxXotvTe) is 
thrust out by cLxXuvt), Lobeck on Soph. Aj. p. 402. might per- 
form the same charitable office. 

On the other hand the line Hymn in Del. 205. is evidently 
corrupted: "Evveirsg* y\ V appvjTOV uXr\g aireirei6<raT0 Xvyqr,g. The 
island Delos invites the wandering Latona — Latona accepts the 
invitation, and is delivered of her living burden. We blame not 
the Editor for being dissatisfied with all former corrections, but 
he need not have added the worst of all at last. His y 8' av Ayrco 
uXr,g &c. is as tame, as it is forced. We read with less alteration, 
"JSwwvfe ouS* a.7:q^xTov % oLXy^ &c. or even preserving the old point- 
ing, "Evvs7TcS' ovh' awgnxTOV oix^g &C. 

In the Hymn in Cer. the Doric Dialect has led to all kinds 
of misfortunes : in v. 34. an innocent s=ixo<ri ex ingenio is trans- 
formed into hlxuri, which is neither Ionic nor Doric, because, 
at v. 70. there stands smuti : on the other hand at v. 40. 9rA«- 
ytira must belonicised, " nam in hoc participio Dorismum vix 

G % 



84 A Critique on 

credo obtinuisse." Unfortunately, however, it occurs twice m 
Theoer.fl», 105. 198. 

We close this catalogue of errors with Lav. Pall. 93. Cha- 
riclo had been just lamenting the blindness of her son Tiresias, 
and the poet continues 

'A jtxsv h%a^orequi(7t <p»Aov t:eqi 7ra<5a Aa£o»<ra. 
The passage is evidently corrupted. Mr. B. attempts to restore 
it thus: Ewe, ku) «ju,$or££aicn, &c. — The idea is good, but the 
execution bad indeed, and as it stands, is destitute of all critical 
proof. We will assist him with a much more simple alteration ; 
" r H, Kou eirocii$oTeQou<ri, &c." Thus ewupQoTsgos, which is un- 
doubtedly genuine, is preserved, and it is easily Conceivable how 
the Doric article came into the MSS. 

That the insignificant Scholia are omitted on Valckenaer's 
judgment, no one can blame ; only then they ought not to have 
been adduced, as they are ad Jov. 14., as of critical autho- 
rity- 

Nor has the Editor availed himself more happily of the as- 
sistance of Nonnus in restoring the text of Callimachus. Ruhn- 
ken, who first pointed out that road, was not himself very well 
read in that author. Mr. B. appears to have made acquaintance 
with him only through Ruhnken, without having paid proper 
attention to the views of that great critic. Otherwise he would 
only have had recourse to his aid for negative criticism, as Ruhn- 
ken often did with success ; e. g. in Del. 75. 189- in Pall. 1 16. 
Fragm. 244. But it is most absurd in Jov. 35. first to abuse 
Nonnus as " litterator ineptissimus," in order to change pctiw- 
(tuvto into (jLctieuvuvTo, though the Editor confesses having read 
the former once in Nonnus ; but the form, thus impitiably turned 
out, is found also in Leonid. Alex. Q.Philipp. Thesalon. 34. and 
Coluth. 180. where Bekker brings other examples from Nonnus. 

Amidst this deplorable want of critical acumen, it is much to 
be lamented that the Editor did not content himself with his 
poet, but has occasionally maltreated other writers, and made 
them companions in misfortune of the poor Cyrenean. Thus 
in Jov. 26. he is offended by Hesiod Opp. 116. Br. using 
orciv with the optative, which had shocked him also in Aesch. 
Pers. 448 : he might have taught himself better from Hermann 
on Viger p. 792. or from Dissert, de Verb. Grasc. Temp, et 
Mod. p. 44. In the same way in Apoll. 94. in a Fragm. of 
Eratosthenes, which needed no correction, 7roAA>? ^avTifxot^Krrvg 
he corrupts into %6\ig dvri(jt.etxi<rtv$. We will say nothing of 
the grounds of this change, until some one will prove to us the 
possibility of using uvTi^a^Krrbs as a feminine adjective. In 

Jov. 



Mr. Blornfield's Callimachus. 85 

Jov. 83. Nicander is miserably treated in Ther. 478. a pas- 
sage, which Schneider has restored from some MS. In A poll. 
53. xoXoiGogov, also in Nicand. Ther. 593. is to be changed into 
Xq\y$6qov. Was the Editor ignorant of such poetical forms, as 
oloidoxo;, oXoolrgo^og, •tfoqatTimos, IIutoiysvYis ? Of the Fragm. of 
Hipponax thrust into the note in Dian. 115. Welcker p. 36, 
may teach him the difficulties. In the midst of all this it is no 
small arrogance in Mr. B.to amuse us in Jov. 79. Apoll. 22.47. 
and elsewhere with conjectures, which he has made, and himself 
rejected. The errors of a Bentley or a Porson may be instructive, 
but what shall we say to those of a Blomfield, those which the 
conjecturer himself allows to be errors ? 

Much less labor has been spent on the Epigrams, than on the 
Hymns. Probably the Editor thought such trifles beneath his 
dignity. In Jov. 48. he had hesitated a long time whether he 
should deign to extend his healing hand to poor Proclus ; at 
last, however, he did condescend, and mutilated a passage till 
then perfect. With Gottling's Anim. Crit., it appears, he was 
not acquainted : a careful study of Jacobs' valuable Com- 
mentary was too much trouble for him. He did well in mo- 
destly abstaining from the conclusion of the 14th Epigr., 
which Gottling has handled so acutely. But his hastiness is 
conspicuous in a sad fault in Epigr. 29-, where for ouSe xsXsuQou$ 
Xuigao' t)s ttoAAouj cuSs xcu code <psgsi, he proposes ty) 7roAAouj, &c. 
With this memorable ty), i.e. yj, introduced into thetext with the 
remark " confidenter," yes ! " confidenter reposui," we the more 
willingly take our leave, as we can refer the reader for all the rest 
to the labors of Jacobs on these Epigr. in the Anthol. Pal. 

The Fragm. have suffered least from Mr. B.'s criticism. We 
would not, however, pass over in silence that among the attempts 
at correction, there appear to be some real emendations, which 
we w T ill point out for the sake of the friends of Callimachus, who 
may probably feel no great desire to possess the present edition, 
e. g. Fr. 87. IIgo(jLY)QsK)$ for IIgo[XYi^Yjog ; Fr. 104. (r^Yja-avreg for 
o-p£a<ravT=£, and Fr. 132. Aoyacnv from Hesych. for Ko^wriv. 

Though this edition, by a complete republication of all Bent- 
ley's remarks, and most of Ruhnken's, contains the best account 
yet given of Callimachus, yet the Editor can claim but little of 
the merit ; nay, by the mixture of his own critical attempts he 
has often injured and obscured those of others. IN or will any 
philologist forgive him for having omitted the rich Commentary 
of Spanheim. With these remarks we leave this beautifully 
printed book to the elegant lovers of Greek Literature. — F.P. 



A CRITIQUE 

ON 

MR. BLOMFIELD'S EDITION OF AESCHYLI 
PERS^E, 

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, 
Which is contained in the Jena Review, No. 105, for June 1816. 



It has been long known to us that Mr. Blomfield, a young 
Cambridge Scholar, was employed, and not without approba- 
tion, on a critical edition of Aeschylus. This news was so much 
the more acceptable, as Hermann withholds too long from us 
his promised edition of the poet, and it is not every one who can 
edit Aeschylus. He who would judge the language of this old 
tragedian, must not only be acquainted with the accustomed 
speech of the Greeks or even of the Greek poets ; but he must 
also know what the Greek tongue bears generally in its bosom, 
and how a high-minded spirit, of impetuous strength and unre- 
fining boldness, which despises common-place and always goes on 
in its own path, could in its inspiration use this language. We 
therefore naturally thought that no one would offer his services 
to the venerable father of Grecian tragedy without first being 
properly prepared for the task, and feeling in himself a certain 
relationship with the great poet in the strength and tendencies 
of his mind. 

We have at length received the latest portion of the Blom- 
fieldian edition of Aeschylus ; the earlier pieces, namely the Pro- 
metheus and the Sep tern ad Thebas, have not yet come to us, 
owing to the still imperfect communication between the English 
and German booksellers. Unfortunately we find ourselves not 
a little deceived in our most moderate expectations of this edi- 
tion of Aeschylus : where the poor poet really wants help, there 
he is deserted, or badly served, by his companion ; on the other 
hand, where he needs no assistance, there his Editor is always 
at hand and busy, skipping about the grave poet with idle chat- 
tering. 



Mr. Biomjield's Jcschyli Persce. 87 

tering. One need hot read far to discover that Mr. Bl. is de-» 
ficient in the most essential qualifications of an Editor of a Greek 
Tragic poet, — in critical acumen, in feeling for poetic language, 
in thought and foresight, in accuracy, in solid information, in 
sufficient knowledge of metre, and even in intimacy with the 
poet, whom he handles. 

Looking only to the real merit of the work, we should con^ 
tent ourselves with a brief notice of it ; but when we consider 
the approbation this edition (of which the first play is al- 
ready reprinted,) has met with in a country, where the classic 
languages are esteemed, and which has produced eminent men 
in this branch of literature, we find ourselves bound to give a 
more particular account of our opinion, from which in some 
measure may be inferred what character philology is beginning 
to take in England. Since the death of Porson several young 
philologists have made a noise there, who, while they are altor 
gether deficient in the requisite knowledge and a just view of phi- 
lology, have so high an opinion of themselves, and come forward 
in such a decisive manner, that by this and a certain show of 
information the inexperienced are deceived and decoyed- On this 
account, therefore, it seems proper to give a timely warning, that 
the writings of this class of English philologists may be used 
with distrust and prudence. As to what in this respect concerns 
our Editor, his boldness, (the only quality in which he at all re- 
sembles his poet,) is so great as to forfeit all pretensions to the 
forbearance, which is otherwise allowed to young scholars of zeal 
and industry. Sometimes, indeed, one stumbles upon modest 
declarations, but it soon appears that these are nothing more 
than affectation and a sort of captatio benevolentia. Already 
in the preface he gives it to be understood, and not indistinctly, 
that he places his littleness amongst major um gentium criticos. 
In conformity to this fancy he judges hastily, and often unjustly 
as well as scornfully, of others, delights in flinging foreign merit 
into shade, perpetually comes forward as a lawgiver, dictates 
groundless rules upon Tragic, Attic, or Greek speech in general, 
and in a dogmatical tone, which the most practised veteran would 
not allow himself. 

Perhaps the best part of the book is the Glossary appended 
to it, in which the Editor shows a sort of compiling industry, 
and this is more useful as a lexicon than of any import to 
Aeschylus ; here passages are heaped up together, for the most 
part without criticism, bad and good, common and uncommon, 
his own and from others. That which is borrowed, makes up a 
great part of it. The early commentators on Aeschylus, the 
notes of the better editions of many Greek writers and their in- 
dexes, 



88 A Critique on 

dexes, particularly that of Euripides, have been his chief coun- 
sel, and named or unnamed have enriched the Glossary. But the 
Albertian Hesychius has been the truest prop to the Editor, 
from which he has sometimes appropriated to himself almost en- 
tire articles. To be convinced of this it is only requisite to com- 
pare at the very threshold the article Mnno^agjxijf at V. 29, and 
hloTros at V. 44. Was it not enough to refer to the notes of the 
Albertian Hesychius, which is in the hands of every philologist ? 
Moreover, in this Glossary there is much injustice and error, 
which we shall take an opportunity of pointing out. 

How far the Editor has entered into the spirit of the tragic 
poets, and particularly of Aeschylus, is shown here and there in 
the preface, from which we quote the following passages : — " Est 
autem fatendum, Aeschylum in Persarum exodo aliquantum a 
dignitate tragoedise descivisse. Valde enim ridicula est Xerxis 
persona cum lamentis suis et laceris pannis et vacua pharetra ; 
sed longe magis ridiculum Chori obsequium, dum varios doloris 
exprimendi modos a Xerxe edoctus, adhibet v. 1039. et seqq. 
Verum hoc a poeta consilio factum fuisse arbitror, ut Athenien- 
sibus risum moveret ; et nescio an eodem fine totidem (?) finxerit 
Persarum nomina, quae aures Atticas ludicra quadam scabritie 
titillarent." It is scarcely to be understood how any one, who 
must have »ead Aeschylus attentively, could have fallen into such 
a blunder; but the ambition of saying something new and un- 
heard misleads him into still more wonderful assertions. Thus 
in the Glossary, p. 148, he with great gravity and circumlocution 
tells us, because Aeschylus sometimes uses the phrases <o$ Suv*- 
vo$ or Suvvov S/;ojv, that he, the Editor, is convinced the poet 
went out thunny-jishing, oblectamenti causa. Moreover, in the 
frequent similes drawn from nets, he finds out the Jisherman 
Aeschylus ; and entirely to do away all doubts, he adds at th« 
end,"quin et fabulam condidit Aeschylus, cujus titulusfuit^fixru*- 
oDXxo;." If Mr. Blomfield goes on in this way, he will be able 
to prove just as decisively that Aeschylus has contended with 
all the birds of heaven, or the bears and wolves, or with a dragon. 
We do not, however, wish to deprive Mr. Blomfield of his in- 
nocent convictions respecting the domestic pursuits of Aeschy- 
lus ; but, when he wants to lay the burthen of his follies on 
Aeschylus the poet, as he does at verse 669, and again at verse 
677, we cannot let it pass so easily. In both these passages 
Blomfield without thought corrects the text thus, Boi<rKe Trsg&v 
axaxs Aotqciy ictvol. Instead of the two last words the reading 
formerly was Japenxv, ol, and here by the bye it is also to be ob- 
served that the form Jugsidv occurs again in the I7egcr«/,wher& in 
the same manner he has suppressed it. As to this lavol, he has, as 

he 



Mr. Blomfield's Aeschyli Versa. 89 

he imagines, restored it to Aeschylus from a well known passage 
in the Frogs of Aristophanes, v. 1052, and so on, where the co- 
mic poet after his usual manner blends jest and earnest together 
with great humour. Here Aeschylus is made to say : 

vmav cte) tov$ avn?raAov£, xocr [Arrets tqyov uqurrov, 

and Dionysius replies, 

eXctPYiv yovv yvlx «7njyyeA0v) irsg) Aaqzlou ts8vccoto$' 
o %ogo$ 5' evQv$ too y£i{? ob$) £vyxpoij(ru$ slirev *Iuvol. 

It is of little importance to Mr. Blomfield that, (according to 
the Scholiasts of Aristophanes,) the old grammarians, Charis, 
Herodicusand Didymus, could not make these passages, as they 
then knew them, agree with the Persians of Aeschylus, and 
therefore could not have read luvoi in this piece: at the same 
time they had much less reason to be puzzled with this excla- 
mation than with the news of Darius's death, to which the same 
poet seems to allude ; for as to what concerns Ictvoi, one must be 
little acquainted with Aristophanes not to know how far he is 
serious on such points. The only object is to ridicule the un- 
common, and partly Persian, exclamations used by Aeschylus in 
the IIeg<rcti, such as oa, and others like to it; and, to be sure of 
the laughter of the spectator, he exaggerates, and foists in upon 
the tragic poet an lauot, which Aeschylus never thought of either 
in Athens or in Sicily. Or will Mr. Blomfield make a present 
to Euripides also from Aristoph. (Ran. 1315.) of the si el el el el 
clAiWoycra ? A t least we are not sure that he will not sooner or later 
inserta |3a£«lin Aeschylus, as in his Glossary p. 195. /3a£al and 
ira7ra) pass for much about the same. We only hope it may not 
Come into the heads of our modern interjectional poets (who do 
wonders by such exclamations) to translate Aeschylus into Ger- 
man, from Mr. Blomfield's edition ; we may else possibly hear 
the chorus of Aeschylus set up in German, an iau, or perhaps 
a miau (a mew). 

Blomfield still further shows his fitness for editing Aeschylus 
by stumbling at and rejecting words and significations of words, 
which are of rare occurrence, or which he himself has rarely met 
with, when at the same time there is no difficulty in them. He 
goes, as it should seem, upon the principle that one passage 
should be modelled upon another, a principle, which by degrees 
will strip the Greek poets of all that freedom and grandeur, which 
we admire in them. At verse 49 he prefers reading crouvrcu to 
tile Homeric (TTeuvrui, because o-ovvroci is in verse 25 also. At 
verse 54 he prefers Schutz's conjectural $v§fyv to the reading 



90 A Ciiiiijue on 

cugSrjv, although *t>u\l\lwtov ox^ov already is there, and thinks be- 
sides that in Rhesus v. 58, there can be no doubt that <p6gh,v 
should be read instead of crug$>jv. At v. 6l, %JIm 'Ao-iriTi$ — irolkp 
vriv-Tou [uiXsgwy we find the following remark : " Karior est vox 
media verbi vTivopau, Theb« 8/0, xXaco, aTevopai. Equidem li- 
benter reponerem illic o-T^va^w, hie creva^e*." Any body else 
would not hesitate to prefer -(rreveTxi, although VTzvuyjci should 
be found in some MSS., particularly in Aeschylus, Moreover, 
Hesychius explains at least the prolonged form orTeivopai by o&u- 
vcufww, (ttsvco, V. 149. Blomfield edits 

irS>s.»§ei irgdovei Beg?,Yt$ } @oi<ri\su$ 

*AoigeioyevY]$, 
to *7rotTgu)W(J*ov wv yevog rj&sTBgov ; 

In the note he says, " ^%olt^v^o v ysvog, omnes, quod a nemine ex- 
plicatum fuit ; TtoLTgvMV[uov autem pro voir gawp ixoy vel TroLTgoiivvfjLQu 
barbarum est." And yetH. Stephens in his Thesaurus has put be- 
yond doubt the use of the similar word Trotgoovu^iog. Pindar too uses 
bra)vu^o$ 9 Ol. X.9<5. andPyth. I. 50. As to the explanation, it is 
not easy to discover what is changed or gained by Blomfield's con- 
jecture. Indeed the emendation, although adopted into the text, 
does not seem to have satisfied the conjecturer himself, for he pro- 
poses also to read, to ts IJ?go-6vo[jLov yivog yphegov, which would 
hardly please any one besides himself, any more than at v. 3Q3. 
his proposed Kd<rmos or Bovdiog instead of BdxTgiog. At verse 669 
he says upon the word elxaxo$, " hanc vocem nesciebat Aeschyli 
asvum, etsi Mercurius apud Homerum dxuxfpvis audiat;" and 
\ r erse86l: — "Vox (axaxaj) contra analogiam peccat. Picebant. 
axuxog ; sed hoc vocabulum recentioris asvi fuit." Yet he falls 
off from this opinion in the Addenda, because he has learnt in. 
the mean time from Bekker's Anecd. p. 370, that Sappho uses 
the word aKuxog. Just as little demonstrable is his assertion at 
v. 490, upon Zityu. and tiltyog : " hoc recentium Atticorum,illud ve- 
terumfuissearbitror." Ltdoes not follow, because Homer did not 
use, Ityog (compare Duker on Thucydides, vii. 87.) that the old 
Athenians did not use it. At verse 1007, nvnXYiyy.ztf , gu5>jAa y*g y 
he remarks, " Malim 7rs7rhY)y[x=(f, oV grjAa y«£. N antique euStjAof 
nescio an alibi apud auctores bonae notas reperiatur." If Mr. 
Blomfield will only look into Plato and Xenophon, he will find 
instances of this word in dozens. Even Aristophanes uses it, 
but in truth Brunck has forgotten to insert it in the Index. 
Just as rashly he says upon the words povudu tie Bsgfav, v. 740, 
" Movug. — JNusquam alibi pro adjectivo usurpatum vidi. Inter 
philqeophos et theologos est unitas" Has he never read in the 
Phcenissa? of Euripides, v. 1537. pva&' a\mu^ and in the Bacchac 

v. 609, 



Mr. Blomfield' s Aeschyli Persa. 9 1 

v. 609, i^ovolV sgypluv ? The word dg^eXoLog also, v. 302, is not 
only used by Aeschylus, but by Herodotus, and the form dgyk- 
Xx$ by Aristophanes, as others have remarked already. 

At verse 521, w dva-vovYjre §ouy.ov, Blomfield is inclined to be- 
lieve that the old lection was, w SwaWxaiffrs tctipov, and for this 
reason, because the word §v<rvcLXcii<rTo$ is elsewhere used in si- 
milar connexion. At verse 108, voXe^oug *vvgyohxixTO'j$ he has 
changed into v. vvgyoloCUrug, with the remark, " lectio vulgata 
est vvgyohtxixrovs, quod foret per turres spoliatos : sed plane re- 
quiritur activa forma vvgyoldUTcig, turrem spoliantes" Blomfield 
does not seem to know how common it is with the Greek poets 
to use such adjectives sometimes actively, and sometimes pas- 
sively. It is a question, moreover, whether the passive signifi- 
cation of the adjective might not be admitted here, not indeed 
as Blomfield wishes, in whose explanation spoliare is not the 
right word. At verse 821 he should not have changed veXuvog 
aliAdToonpayYis into v. al^aTOcrray^, although Brunck, Porspn, 
and Schiitz have done so. As the tragic poets said cupa a-^ei^etv, 
ctipa xTen/=iv,&c. they might also say veXavog a.\iux.TO<T<payy)$, which 
is equivalent to veXavog alpciTog (repay evrog. In the Glossary upon 
the verse 432 Stanley is blamed for having in the words, olpcoyv) 
8' 6(jlov Kooxvpourw xoitsI^s veXuyluv aAa, translated the particle opov 
by una cum, and the remark added that this use of opov is ex- 
tremely rare, and never, as Bl. believes, occurs in the dramatic 
writers. We extract only from Aristophanes Eccl. 404, arxogoV bpov 
TQtyctvT ovco, and from the same author, J.Poll, vi. 62 : voX<pob$ 
V oi>x yj-^/ov 6[xou /3oa£o7$. We read also in the Hours of Aristo- 
phanes, as quoted by Athenaeus p. 372. xoXoxuvrag opov roCig 
yoyyvXiaw. It may here be observed by the bye, that Porson 
in his Adversaria p. 108, has gone to work with this fragment 
very arbitrarily, and that many of his emendations are very 
improbable. 

At verse 709, 

aXX* eve) Uog vaXaiov <ro) (pgsvcuv uvblvTctTui, 

Blomfield observes, " Editiones et Codices scripti magno con- 
sensu in <pgevwv uvQiaTotrat conspirant ; dvMa-Totpoii vero, quod ver- 
bum rarissime apud Tragicos reperietur, nihil aliud significai e 
potest quam adversor, contra sto, quo sensu cum dativo construi- 
tur. Quare reponendum censeo notam formulam tpgevwv avQa- 
vreron." Then follow many passages, in which d vQuvreo-dou occurs. 
If dvQio-TuaQoii signifies " to stand against one," w T hy may it not 
also signify "to stand opposite," or even " before one," and with 
this meaning take a genitive case, as happens with other verbs com- 
pounded with qLvtij as uvtwktQqu and «mx«0*?s<r0«* for instance ? 

And 



i)2 A Critique on 

And if Mr. Blomfield found the genitive case so unintelligible, 
he was yet at liberty to construe tm) Uog notXoabv Qgzwv dMdTcirui 
<tqi. At verse 296 he says of the word v7rsgGtx\\w, " excedo, su- 
pero, vi intransitiva. In sensu transitivo media tantum forma 
usurpatur, nisi cum transire significat." The Editor might 
have learnt from Stephens's Thesaurus, that the active in this 
sense is used transitively by Demosthenes and Xenophon (by the 
last also in the Cyropasdia, vii. 5, 21.), a use which in a certain 
measure is understood of itself, as the signification transire is at 
the bottom the same. Mr. Blomfield then recollects a pas- 
sage of this kind in the Prometheus of Aeschylus, but this he 
sets aside very cleverly. He says : — " Distingue : A Og ty xegocuvou 
xgsia-a-ov svgYjost (pXoyu, Bgovrr\g^\ vrngSaXXovTa xugrsgbv xtvttqv." In 
this Avay he knows how to bring the most obstinate passages to 
reason. He brings forward a construction, no less forced, in 
the note to V.298, where in the words of Sophocles' Philoctetes, 
he couples the dative otvQgoo7roi<ri with fo$eto-ag : avQgw7roi<n roig psv 
Ix Sewv Tu^ctg SoQslo-ug eW oivuyxuiov <pegeiv. At v. 712, dvQgoQ7reict 
$ uv toi 7rYifj,ctT av rv^oi figoToig, we read in the notes, u, nr\\hoa dv- 
tu%oi Aid. Trij^aT hruyot Edd. reliquag. Sed IvTvyyjxvw non 
nisi de. personis usurpatur." Without wishing to affirm that 
hvrvxoi is here the right reading, we only ask, supposing the 
rule, which limits hruy^uva) to persons in common speech, is 
true, does it follow that a poet should act according to it, and be 
disabled from representing things as persons? As to the rest, Xe- 
nophon says of chariots, Expedit. Cyr. I. 8, Elyov^s ra dgs7rum 
ex Tobv afcovoov z\g nXdyw d'nQTZTcipk'vcx., xot) utto roig litygoig slg y*jv 
fiXz'xovTa, dbg huxoTrrw otco evTv^onv : and in Memorab. Socrat. 
iv. 3, 14. : xegavvog re yoig on fxh olvwQsv ottplsTai, SyjAov, xot) on, otg 
oLv svTuxy, navTaiv xgarii. And here we may be allowed to re- 
mark, there is probably a play on a poetic passage, at least an 
iambic trimeter lies very near : Ksgavvbg olg env^y, ndi/Tooi/ xgurfi. 
V. 722, there is 



udcipwg, dk>' dfxfi 'AQyvctg nag xare^ugroLi o-rgcuTog. 



First, the lection <k\k$ 'Afyvoug is rejected, and hear on what 
grounds, "nam sensusest circa Athenas, non de Athenis;" then 
the variation lii^ugrai is found fault with, and the use of xutu^bI- 
gsiv confirmed by some parallel passages. He continues, " Porro 
liu^sigstv in sensu perdendi non usurpatur, cum potius significet 
corrumpere" We need only remind our readers of Aesch. 
Agam. 1275, <re j«,ev ngo polgug Tr\g e^g dioupOsgcio, Sopho- 
cles CEdip. R. 438. ffi ^egcx. <p6<rei <rs xu\ hot.$=gfi, Eur. J ph. 
Taur. 1028, o'tpoi, $ie$oLQ[is<rQoi f Troad. 404. rovg e^larous s^q\ 
— Ziufybegu), Ion. 347* e* 0' ouxst so~t) } rlvi T£07r« 5js<p0ag»j ? 

At 



Mr. Blomfield' s Aeschyli Persce. 93 

At. v. 779 Blomfield departs from Brunck's opinion, who 
had affirmed that the tragic writers had in general used eutivvoe 
more frequently- than Uvvca, and adds, " Attici, ni fallor, svQuvw, 
evQvvo;, evQvvr), &c. non nisi in rebus politicis usurpabant." Ac- 
cordingly in page 145 of the Glossary, two passages of Euri- 
pides are corrected ; the rest (of which some occur even in the 
beginning of the Hecuba,) will probably be favoured some other 
time ; and, as he speaks of the Athenians in general, he will do 
away with the evQuvog of Plato and Xenophon, and teach them 
to say y Mv?iv, when the subject is not political. 

At verse 747, &jcc puxgov %govov raS' kju^ouv extzXsvtyjosiv §eov§ 9 
he takes the opportunity of the variation exrekevTYi<rou to remark, 
that the future is more common after av^soo, and concludes the 
note with these words : " Nusquam in hujusmodi locutionibns 
aoristiun primum ofFendi." Setting aside that it is altogether 
uncritical to make a distinction in such cases between the 
two aorists, we wish to know why the aorist should not stand 
after uv^sw and the verbs of a similar import ? In the Andro- 
mache of Euripides, v. 311, <ru [xh yug vju%s»$, §ea$ figeTcts (rw- 
<rou Toh, Blomfield corrects owo* into ow=iv, and in like 
manner in the Alcestis, v. 144, iA7n$ ph ouxir £<rn owao-6a* 
filov ; The Editor advances more boldly at v. 249, noKvv re xa) 
xaKov yQslgoti trrgarov. This he accompanies with a note : " Quo- 
tiescunque fere noXvg cum epitheto conjungitur, intervenit par- 
ticula xa), quas nihil sententiag addit." This quotiescunquefere can 
only mean that xou is in this case included in the rule ; and that 
it must be a singular exception, when it is not found there. Then 
follows the high-flying addition, " hoc de omnibus Graeciae 
scriptoribus notandum," together with about a dozen examples 
from writers of different kinds, in confirmation of the given rule. 
We ask to what end are these examples ? If the intersertion of 
)ca» be a rule, it follows naturally that the examples must be num- 
berless, as the instances ar-e so, in which another adjective is 
added to no\vg. If any thing of this kind should have been, it 
was the exceptions to the rule, which had been most in place. 
But truly this rule, which Mr. Blomfield has abstracted from 
all Grecian writers, is not in the best possible plight, and we are 
sorry to be obliged to tell him that he might have found a refu- 
tation of it without going beyond Aeschylus. We have just 
before had in the present piece, v. 241, (rrgarog — epfac 7roAAa &j 
Mr$ove xuxoi, for that such passages are to be considered oppo- 
site to the rule is evident from his examples, amongst which we 
find such as flroAAct xou xolxol, iroWa. xcti (ro<pu, ttoAAgc xou xolKol. 
Farther below we have, %o\\u ph yag ex SaAacor^, kqWu. 8' lx 
ykgaau xaxa riyvsroti $vy)to!$. V. 850, cog pt,e ■woAA* IvzgytTOLi xctxa. 

*AXyr). 



94 A Critique on 

"AXyy\. Agam. 872,7roAAa£ xXvovcruv xXySovctg TtctXiyxorovg : 1Q99, 
rroAAa — Aurofyova xaxcc. Choeph. 275,7roAAa # &y<7T=|3 , 7nj xocxu: 583, 
ttoXXoc (xh yoi rptyzi Aeivtx, 8=j//.aTcov «%>?. Eumen. 499? TroAAa 8* 

STVfiOL ^TTMWTpODTOL, Ho&zOL. 649, KOXXyj [AYl%(X.VY) X'JTYjglOg. Slippl. 459, 

XgYi<TTr}gi6t. — 7roX\u'7rYi[AOVYisa.xy) : 7-33, noXsi fx=Xocy^l[xcp %vv vrqciTw : 
754, vtoXXohg — su x&TsppivYijAsvovg: 967, ttoAAcov jtcsT aAAtov : 998, 
fl-gdf ysygufAfxevoig JJoXXoloriv uXXoig Go^qovlvfixviv 7rctTgog. Mr. 
Blomrield will have difficulty in bringing together from Aeschy- 
lus a similar number of passages for his rule, and yet perhaps 
we have overlooked many against it. We have besides pur- 
posely past over some, against which doubts might have been 
raised, as in Agam. v. 880,7roAA^v — *rglpt,oigov ^Xulmv. Pers. 273, 
t« 7roAA« BzXsxnaft^yYi, The other tragic poets are not more 
favourable to the rule. Yet perhaps he will say that in regard to 
the poets he may have erred, but that his rule holds good in the 
common speech of the Greeks. We must not, to refute this, 
bring him examples from the prose writers ; for he might then 
object, that here the particle had always been omitted by a 
"mirandus stupor librariorum." See his Glossary, p. 142. As 
in the mean time the comic poets spoke the general language, 
we quote for his satisfaction the following passages from Aristo- 
phanes. Plut. 546, noXX&v 'AyoiQcbv. 667,"ETsgoi re iroXXol. Nub. 
363, xxxoi noXX' uvs^ei. 854, X' cltTsgu ye 7roAAa. 1377, UoXXolg xct- 
wig. Ran. 392, ?roAAa j«,ev ysAo<a — noXXa. Se o"7rou$aja. 1071, aA- 
Xoug toj noXXobg ayuQovg. Equit. aAAoj tb ttoXXoi. Acharn. 633, 
ttoAAwj/ iiyaQcbv. Coll. 641, 649, xccxci itoXXu. 656, noXXa, kyahct. 
Vesp. 439,7roAAa — feivci — xocxu. \0l 5, xoofxcod moL 7roXX<x. Pac. 423, 
X* arsgx — ttoXXo. — ctyaQa. Eccles. 435 seqq. ttoAA' kyctftot, — noXXoi 
xctxct. 1059, ttoAA* uyo&ct. Lysistr. 256, 7roAA' cLzXtttci. 8 15, TroAAa 
— xolxo.. Thesm. 22, 7roXXa, — toiuutci. 477, iroXXoL lewu. 545, 
itoXXoi xolxx. 785, xuxa. 5roAAa. 827, TtoXXoig — eregoig. Nub. 
956, noXXoig — vfizai X£>5<tto7£. Equit. 1365, noXXolg y v7toXl- 
<nroig nvy&iQHTiv, Av. 51 4,~xaXXoi ys &eo) 7ravu noXXoi. 705, 7roA- 
Xovg $s xotXoug — 7roudag. Pac. 1009, otxXoig TevQoti$7roXXoig. Eccles. 
52, y£ drsqotg TroXXolg ttclvu ymouxag. 728, noXXoug — SvXaxovg — 
hftovg. Lys. 565, TZTCigctypeM irpotyfiaTU sroAAa. 1204, a-pixga. 
toXXol Trailla.. Now we can assure our readers that the number 
of opposite passages in Aristophanes is much less, from which it 
plainly may be inferred, that nothing more in Blomfield's canon is 
true, than that this same xoti is sometimes interserted, but is just 
as often, if indeed not more frequently, omitted, a point which was 
known long ago. The remark also, that the idea gains no force by 
xoti, is false and unphilosophical ,• for the passages, already cited, 
show that it often cannot even be omitted. But if Mr. Blom- 
field's philosophy is not yet plain enough from the foregoing, the 

following 



Mr. Blomfield' s Aeschyli Persa. 95 

following will show it still more clearly. At v. 511 he says, " in 
Soph. QEdip. Col. 905, pro El y,h fa' ogyrigriKov, locutione inau- 
dita, reponendum El ph fa' oqyr\g yXGov." At v. 846, where instead 
•of ^■•j^YJd^ovrssrjdovYjv, Pauw (whom Porson follows) would read 
&v%v}V didovrsg rfiovYJ, we find the following note, " Pauwii corre- 
-ctionem aliquatenusfirmare videatur Eur. Phoeniss. 21, oh' $ovy 
£bu£, sc. sauToi/. Sed Vu^y %3ovts$ Yjfovvjv quadrat cum Theognidis 
praecepto,. Tyv (ravrov <pgevct regm, et Euripidis Eutppctivs ctuvtqv*" 
Moreover, Mr. Blomfield likes to reduce poetry to the common 
feeling of prose : in v. 252,to05s yoig ^goy^u <pooTo$ Ilsgo-ixov 7rge- 
ttsj p,aflr 7v, he wishes to read IIego~ixov. V . 340, instead of vswv 
'EAArjv/Scov, he would read vswv 'EAAvjviKwv, ^because Aeschy- 
lus says so in two other passages. Upon this principle, it is pro- 
bable that he will not endure in Eurip. Iph, Taur. 1424, vswg 
'.EAArv/Soj, nor in Ion 1160, * supper y.ovg vocug uvrlug 'EWYivlcru*. 
What then will he say to 'EXXotiog vzwg, to 'EKKu$ ocvrig, to^yJj 
"JEAAyjv, and similar instances ? 
At v. 415, 

vjg>|*2 8* l^oKris 'E\\y}viXT} 
v/xvg, xccKoQqoLvsi mcara <Pomo-o~Yi$ v*wg 
x6gvjx§' 1 S7r «AA>jv S' aKKog 'iQvvev logv. 

he would read W uKKov to make all right. Appositions of an 
unusual kind he cannot bear. V. 71, KoXvyopyov *ofa<rpa Zvyov 
uptp&uXwv uu-Xsvi novrov, he proposes *6bV|u,ou. At V. 125 et 
seqq. he has not understood the construction, 

noti to Kl<r<riov 7ro\io~fj? 

*CtVT f &0V7TQV S0~0~STUI 

o« tout sTTog yyva;xo7rX>j- 
$ijS opiXog otnuoov. 

Here the words to Klo-aiov n:o\i(T\La. are more clearly deter- 
mined by the apposition ywvaixowAijflijs oiuXog. Blomfield first 
adopts Burney's conjecture aosrai instead of ea-<rerau 9 which may 
indeed be listened to, but which is unnecessary in a chorus, 
where Aeschylus himself says scrxs instead of ^v : and he then re- 
marks : — " Critici noKia-px cum aasrui vel eWsTai construunt, ut 
sit fywXoy nominatives pendens. Quae ratio mihi quidem minus 
placet." In place of this the poet must be contented with a 
forced parenthesis from am'&ouwov to cbrucov. . But Mr. Blomfield 
forgets this parenthesis in his Glossary, where the rejected 
nominativus absolutus, as he calls it, is again received, and 
he only remembers it in the Addenda. If he has in this 
place taken an apposition from Aeschylus, he has on the other 
hand made him a present of one at Pauw.'s suggestion, for 

which 



96 A Critique o# 

which we owe him few thanks : this is at v. 257, where he writes 
rijAs ir{>b$ Zv<rp.ou$ t &vockto$ yXlov <pfav our pour w, instead of QQivourp.*- 
toov, a common pleonasm, which (as we well remember) Mr. 
Blomfield himself has elucidated in another place by examples. 
Eustathius and Hesychius prove nothing against the lection 
<p$wa<T[i,uT(tiv. He however remains fixed in his dislike against 
appositions at v. 17o, where the former reading was, 

c qb$ tolV, cog ovTcog hyovrcov Tcovfa, <tuju,£ouAoi Koyov 
roOSs jaoi ylyvzcrQs, JJegcrtxij yypctXect TriaTcbpoiTU. 

He introduces into the text, TovU poi ysvicrfa, Usgcrcov yrigctXict. xt- 
irrcbpoiToi, and although all editions and MSS. have Iltgcrca, he 
yet thinks his alteration justified, because he finds in the very 
beginning of the piece, Tufo ph JJegcrcov — TIicttu xocXsirai. By the 
same rule he might much more easily write Ilsqcraig: for below, 
v. 629, there is fix<rltetci yvwi, ngecrGog IJigcroctg. But he seems 
to lay particular stress on this first verse, tyrput of love to it he 
conjectures at v. 687, instead of 

w vhftoL khttcov, r t htKeg S* $&]$ ift%, 
nigcrai yegaio), 

we should read cl mora Ilsgo-cov in spite of the following IJipcat 
ysqouol. In proof of this he cites the above-mentioned Tlsgcrm 
yrigotksa irtcrTwpocToc, which, being adopted into the text, belongs 
no more to him, but to Aeschylus. From the above verse bis se- 
cond change also of yevfaQe, instead of yiyys<r$= 9 gets an illustra- 
tion, a change which he drew from two MSS., while all the rest, 
together with the editions, have in the usual form of writing 
ylvecrQs. Blomfield's note on this runs thus : — "TsvfaQg Med.G. 
recte, sine dubio. Num imperativum praesentis agnoverint Tra- 
gici, incertum puto. In Soph. CEdip. T. 697, pro to. vuv t ev~ 
irofjLiros, s\ Ivmio, ylyvov, certissime, [we have, however, some 
doubts,] corrigit Elmsleius si Ivvou, [probably in place of &mjj 
yevoio vel ygvov poi. In Eur. Hipp. 305, legendum caiQafcerig* 
revov ^oLkcHjv^, et in Cyel. 94, «AA* r^^x^ y&Lrte" We should 
like to know why, when all the other modi of the present of 
ylywfipti are in use, the imperative alone should be excluded, 
and still more, why the tragic poets in particular should not 
have recognised it? Or are we, indeed, to doubt of the exist- 
ence of the optative and subjunctive? for, as far as we know, 
these occur proportionally seldom in the present. On the con- 
trary, we think, when the MSS. leave us the choice between 
the imperative of the present and the aorists, while (as here and 
in other similar passages of the Hippolytus) the sense does not 
oppugn it, the unu&ual present is to be preferred, m ibe place 

of 



Mr. Blomfield' s Aescki/li Persx. 97 

of which the more common aorist might be so easily inserted. 
We therefore disapprove his reading at v. 650, 7re/x\(/«T6 instead 
of ttI/xttsts, on account of a parallel passage. It has a similar 
condition with the imperfect, which from its nature must occur 
less frequently than the aorist. But, as our Editor troubles him- 
self little with reasons, and detei mines by the number of passages, 
he has against this tense also a decided dislike. At v. 489 he 
changes hwkvff into 8*»As0\ And v. 510, 

<p\eyaiv yap avya~i$ Ka^%qog vjX/ou xuxAo; 
/oteVov moqov Sjrjxe, Seppalvwv (pXoyi, 

he conjectures o\>j£s instead of 8i>jxs. " Interpretes sumsere," he 
says, " quasi esset a o^xw, quod verbum dubito an alia habeat 
tempora quam praesens ac futurum." We must here again ask 
why he doubts ? as the imperfect is in use not only of the simple 
verb tjxco, but also of the compounds TrgooSjxa), I^xco, |w,efl^xa>, &c. 
But even Si>jxs is found in Xenophon, Hist. Graec. IT. 2. 3 : 
>) olfuayY) ex. rou IleigoLitbs o\a twv paxqw reiywv eg &<ttv Strjxsv. In 
v, 522 also, we do not think the lection IvyWov altogether to be 
rejected. The imperfect I^XXsto, Mr. Blomfield may find, if 
he wants an example, in the Wasps of Aristophanes, v. 330: 
yet in the same Comedy v. 1305, the reading of the Rav. Cod. 
and of Suidas, \vy{Kolt , seems preferable. 

In the passage of Aeschylus, at least, Mr. Blomfield should 
not have written iv^Aco without authority, a change, against which 
Erfurdt has properly protested in CEd. R. v. 1307, comparing 
ahopeva from the Eumenides, v. 369. It may be compared 
with similar forms, such as ^gapjv and ^oJcmjv. It is probable 
that at v. 658, Bl. would have changed ebrwAAu, if he had not in 
good time discovered two passages in Sophocles, where the im- 
perfect is used. From what has been already said, it may be 
concluded that he would not have borne in Aeschylus still more 
unusual things, such as oruv with the optative, andei with the 
subjunctive. V. 456, 

eVTotv&ac ne^'irei tou<tS*, 07ruig, orav vswv 
qbaqevreg i%0£Oi vrjcrov sxvootyitx.TO, 
xreivoiev ev^eiguiTQV 'EXKyvwv <7T§octqv, 

he writes oV Ix vswv instead of orctv vewv, and v. 796, e\ p.)) argot- 
Tsyojcrfl' eg toVEAA»jvcov toVov, Mrfi e\ vrgareviAu 7r\e1ov $ to Mij&xov, 
he writes //,*)&* if y in place of /xijS* e*. That an old grammarian 
in Bekker's Anecdota, p. 144, has thought of this construction, 
and cited two passages from Sophocles, will probably not make 
an Editor waver in his opinion. 

Even the poetic forms Mr. Blomfield endeavours here and 

H there 



98 A Critique on 

there to suppress, and substitute the vulgar in their place.' At 
v. 430, it is true all the editions and MSS. have to) 8", but Mr. 
Blomfield writes ol 5', and says, "toU* edd. omnes, quod etside- 
fendi potest, satins judicavi in communem formam mutarc." 
Even in the Chorus v. 574, he cannot endure to) 8', although 
verse 590 it again occurs, where he has left it uncontested. At 
v. 871, oWaj §' sl\s 7toA=»s, &c. he remarks that the examples 
quoted by Burney in confirmation of o<r<rot$, and indeed o<r<rov 
from Eurip. Supp. 59, and roWov from Aesch. Agam. 140, and 
Soph. Aj. 185, might be disputed. As these passages are al- 
together borrowed from Choruses, where the use of the Epic 
form is so frequent, we see no other reason why Mr. Blomfield 
should doubt their propriety, than as a reason for giving out his 
own emendations. Upon the passages from Euripides he only 
says, " certissime repono, [Aerafos 5* olenv litaCkyw psksa, x, r. A.," 
without giving any explanation of the way, in which he would 
have it construed. In the Ajax he writes, 

OU7T0TS yug (pgcVoQev y W ugKTTsgoif 

ctv rovov 7roi(x,vai$ nfovoov, 

instead of the former reading toWov h nolpvoug niTvcuv', with the 
translation added, " aliter enim, nunquam eo insanias pervenis- 
ses." Mr. Blomfield does not seem to know that in such a 
combination &v is not absolutely requisite ; still less does he 
seem to feel that his alteration destroys the march of the rhythm. 
On this occasion he bethinks himself of a passage in the Troades 
of Euripides, v: 770, where Musgrave had long ago written from 
MSS. ovolts yYj Tgetysi xaxot. But this does not satisfy the Edi- 
tor; he amends it into cL<t7ol yrj rgefsi xaxoc. At v. 572, of his 
own power he inserts the common form Qpaxr^ instead of the 
poetic OgyxYis. Not long before, v. 515, he has, however, left 
OgyxYlv in the text, but in the note declares himself in these 
words, " Nescio an rectius scriberetur Qgaxyv, quod habetscho- 
liasta. Attici, ut videtur, dicebant 6pa£ Qgaxos" In the Greek 
Tragedy the reverse of this is true. At v. 559 in the Gl. the 
Editor expresses his surprise that Schafer, in a fragment of 
Soph., has approved the accus. fictglSuv, and proposes instead 
of it, fiug&txTotv. Sch'afer's opinion is supported, amongst other 
things, by the accus. hvxu%uv in Brunck's Anal. Epigr. a$=<r7r. 
194, Vol.3, p. 190. Utterly absurd too is that he writes at v. 65, 
upon the forms Muglxuv and Magixavra ; because he finds in a 
fragment of Arist ., cited by Eustath., the form Mctgixuvru, he doubts 
whether we should not always, when Eupolis h Moiglxa is quoted, 

write 



Mr, BhmfieWs Aeschyli 'Persa. 99 

write h MagtxoivTci, and in the Clouds ot Arist. v. 55, he would 
read Ev7ro\i$ ph rbv MaqwoivTCi ttqwtos nagsiXxvosv. 

Of equal value are the remarks of the Editor on analogy, scat- 
tered through the work. At v. 252 the lection Sga^a, in which 
all the editions and almost all the MSS. agree, is rejected as op- 
posite to analogy, and fyopjju,* received. In the Addenda, it is 
true, a passage is cited from Herodot. where Ipa^^c*. occurs, 
but even there it is to be exchanged for fydpjjxa. In the mean 
time Ion, in Athenasus, uses this form, p. 468. c. oltrsi Ss Iwpov 
cLfrov dpoL(XY)[ji.ctTo$, and the Etym. says on the form edpctpov : c O 
Is * Hpoo$ioiv6$ <pvi<7iv, oti tivvotTOLi elvoti cctto tou dpa^w 7rspi<T7rctiy.evoir e$; 
ov xot) to Trocgoi Msvuvdgop, olov, Aehgoty.rix.ot cro» tipopov olov ovfa)$ ww- 
5T0TS : — xot) pYipi,ciTixbv ovo[lu 9 ^poL[Lf\\KOL, Compare with this Zonar. 
under t Etigupov, p. 608, who has given the fragment of Menan- 
der more fully, and has added, ovtcjd ZijvoSotoj. V. 580, Blom- 
field, instead of /3o«tiv tolKchvocv, otvduv, writes /3oav, roiv TotKcavuv 
auSav, with the remark, "hoc reponendum judicavi, cum vox 
*§qy\ti$ contra analogiampeccet." Cannot then # /3o>jt*)£ and p>o^rig 
be formed from fZootco just as well, — to take one example only, — 
as 7t\<xvy)tyis and wXoivYiTit; from nKavaw ? For similar reasons the 
good reading ^ayotvogsiog is changed into uyuvogsg, and v. 76, in- 
stead ofp^floW noipoivogiov, xJIqvci iroipLctvTogiov is recommended as 
more agreeable to analogy. But what this ybwv it<himlvt6§ios 
means, he does not say. [See H. Steph. Thes. 3, 44.5.] The 
form # Asux>j{?>) $ also, v. 1057, is called in question as a sin against 
analogy, and kevxuy^ proposed for it. 

We will now show a few of Blomfield's numerous conjecture? 
on other authors, as well as Aeschylus. In the Preface, p. vii. he 
touches upon the following fragment of the comic poet Plato, 
in Athenseus viii. p. 344. d. 

o&» \x.sv 'Amyv§a.<rK>g 6g<pwg ecrri croi, 
t«O0' tug QlXog Muvl<rxo$ §Voj0' 6 Xot\x.ife6$, 
B. xcc\w$ Aeys<£. 

In the second verse the Codex reads & ouS' w$ <p/Ao$ Mvvvjxo; eVofl* e 
XotXxifavs, from which Blomfield forms, 

A. oh) ftsv 'AvotyvpotQ-iog optywg lor* o~ot. 

B. ovx, co <$>/*', uKXot, Mvvi<rxo$ so~V 6 Xu\xifeu$. 
A. xot\w$ \£yei$» 

and which he translates, "hie non orphus est, sed ipse Myniscus, 
adeo dentibus horret." We will not contest with him this conjec- 
ture, which for the rest is tasteless and without sap or strength, 
but it is worth while to observe how he gets rid of Jacobs on 
this occasion. He says, " Jacobsius Animadv. p. 191, infelici 

H 2 tentamine 



100 A Critique on 

tentamine corrigit/Ov ouS' 6 <ri$kb$ Mvvl<rxo$ eSed' 6 XotXx$ev$ : ubi 
non semel contra linguae rationes peccatur. 2i$\og interpretatur 
Helluo, sedfallitur ; o-i^Ao^estCsecus: vid. Ruhnken. Ep.Crit.il. 
p. 166." Would not one believe Ruhnken had shown in the 
passage so quoted that <n$\o$ meant ccecus, and nothing more ■? 
But on the contrary, many meanings of <n4>Ao$ are shown there, 
and moreover, a passage is cited from Oppian, where it is com- 
monly explained by helluo. In addition to this, it must be evi- 
dent to every impartial reader tliat J acobs has hit upon the truth, 
at least in his emendation of ehW in place of g<ro0\ P. xxvi. of 
the Preface, he would read in a Schot. of Hermogenes, instead 
of Jioysviuvog hv r>j /ii£ej,— -ev ra7$ Ae£e<rt t We refer Mr. Blom- 
field to Ruhnken's Preface to the 2nd vol. of Hesych. p. xi, 
where he will learn that \e%i$ often signifies the same as lexicon, 
with the Grammarians. At v. 83, 

xvuvovv (so Mr. Bl. writes) 8* oppouri AitWcw 
Qoviov legyjAot dgotxovTO$, 
•TroKv^iq, xcti # 7roAuvauT«£, 

eirayei SovgixXvTOis uv- 

he thinks we should perhaps read hwxovr , nempe "Agyv, but does 
not say what in this manner is to become of the S* after XCgiov, 
which on account of the measure cannot be omitted. At v. 31 1 
in the Glossary, he would read in Erotian, where Homer is cited 
under the name of 6 <ro$b$, "Ofjuqgog in the place of 6 <ro$6$. At 
v. 388, he forms the following Trimeter through the insertion, 
of ?!?, 

xct) Travvu^oi 8^ e!$ hocxXoov xctQlcTTOKTotv, 

We are convinced that this construction $$ el$ cannot be de- 
fended by w ifteVai and such expressions. At v. 402 in the 
Glossary, the Editor touches upon a fragment from the Soldiers 
of Hermippus, as found in Hesychius v. ^JJanxrov : 

WqCC TolvVV jU,ST SflOU X°°§ S ~ iV [ T ° V ] XWTDJTVJga hct%QVTCly 

xa* 7rpoarxe<puXouov } *V Ij T)jv vuvv spir^o-us f>oQiaty$. 

B. «AA' OU UopOtl, 7TUVMTQV g%WV TOV 7Tf>0QXT0V. 

Phavor. has already the article rov before xuiirqrriqu. Instead 
of nuvixrov Mr. Blomfleld would read thji/jxtoi/, and translates it 
by vermiculatus, Anglice " embroidered." We could well have 
wished that he had a little more distinctly explained what he 
means by this 7T£coxtos, vermiculatus or "embroidered," as we on 
the Continent are not acquainted with these secret occupations 

of 



■i 



Mr. Blomjield' s Aeschyh Persx. 101 

of sailors. In the mean time we are of opinion that naviKTov 
may remain as the Doric dialect in place of tpjvjxto'v : for why 
may not the sailor have replied in the Doric dialect ? We 
know not who he is, or whence he comes. Leonidas, the Ta- 
rentine, uses iruvtot, instead of mjv/a, in Br. Analecta I. p. 222. 
viii. We understand ttyivikto; (which, as Tnjv/xrj, false hair, 
comes from tdjv/^co,) in the sense of curled, and find the joke thus. 
One sailor advises the other to take with him a pillow (7rpo<rxs- 
<£aAaiov), for that part, which, at the rudder, would need a bol- 
ster. By this expression he raises that part to the dignity of a 
k&QuXy}. The other sailor answers, in the same tone of exagge- 
ration, that this xztpuXy) was sufficiently provided with hair to 
supply the place of a pillow. To repeat, as Blomfield does, 
irpoa-xefuKotlov after tt^wxtov, is unnecessary. 
At v. 547, 

at 8* uSpoyooi Tleg<7l§c$ uvlqwv 
7roSsov<rui ttish ^'apT^vytoiVf 

Mr. Blomfield has edited axgoyooi 27. He thinks the other cannot 
stand, " cum brevi intervallo sequatur dSgo^lrcoves" though he 
himself in another place cites instances to prove that the Trage- 
dians made no conscience of such repetitions. Instead of Troflg'ou- 
<rcu \Mv he farther proposes 7roQeov<riv ewv, that in this place also 
something weak and superfluous may be introduced. 
At v. 604, 

0/Xoj, xolxwv /xsv o<rrig 'ipTreigo; xugsl, 
hnivruTou, figorolcriv co$ otolv xhuftow 
xoikcov kire\$Y) } 7rctVTct 8e</x,a»ve»v (piAsr 
orctv 8* o Sa/jiuov evgovj, 7re7ro»0sva* 
70V uvTov us) IolI^ov ovgielv Tup£>j£. 



has not understood the changed construction, and says " rw- 
yr$ libri tarn scripti quam impressi, quod in accusativum tu%«j 
reformavi." Fortunately, however, through an error of the press, 
or through the carelessness of the Editor, the right reading Tuyyis 
has been suffered to stand in the text. In the same note he cites 
from the Choephorse v. 313, and changes here quite silently 
txeiQsv ovglcrug instead of exscflcv ovplcrag. Immediately after in our 
Piece we read 

spoi yag rj$vj volvtol /xsv <po£ou 7r\ea, 
iv t(A,y,a<rlv t avToua $uIvztoli Sewy. 

Here Mr. Blomfield has edited (and as he justly says " suo peri- 

culo/') 



102 A Critique on 

culo,") Qotlveroti ra §swv, because votvrot Sewv "cannot be joined. 
But why not <p6Gov Seiuv ? He has received a still bolder change 
into the text at v. 67 J : instead of oirto$ xaiva. re xXvy $ via r a^, 
to which on the score of metre there is no objection, he adopts 
into the text, 07rco$ xawoxora x\6yj$ via. r ap^vj. As xctiva. xa) ak\6- 
xora stand in the Scholiasts, he compounds from it xaivoxoru, 
and without ceremony foists it upon the poet, because he likes 
the composition with xoro;. If Aeschylus had stood by, when 
Blomfield was doing him this kindness, he would probably have 
reproved him a little v7rspxoTw$. At v. 689 in the Glossary, a 
passage of Athenaeus is touched upon, p. 19. d. where this au- 
thor mentions an Alexandrian mountebank, Matreas, who had 
openly rehearsed certain jesting problems in imitation of the 
Aristotelian ; for example, hot rt 6 rjAios Svvsi ph, xoXvpSa 8' ov. 
Amongst these is also the following, dia. ri ra rzrpalpayy.a xa- 
raWarrerai ph, opyifyrai V ov, the sense of which has long ago 
been rightly understood ; the jest lies in the double meaning of 
xuraWarrevQai, to be exchanged and to reconcile. Instead of 
this Mr. Blomfield writes in capitals xuparrsrai ju,ev, and proves 
this in his way by many passages, from which nothing ensues. 
At v. 751, 

6Vn$ ' EXh.Y)<T7rovTOv Ipov, SovXov wc } *b y so~fi,w[j,ct<riv 
jjAttifs (T^asiVf peovra Boo~7ropov poov Seov, 

even poov SsoO displeases the Editor, and he proposes in its place 
Boo-7ropov poov Soov. V. 925, Xerxes exclaims 

a* a* a* a*, xefoa$ aXxa$. 

Mr. Blomfield says, " xefoa$ omnes, quod in xevza$ confidenter 
mutavi." If indeed aKxa can mean nothing more than agcayrj, 
which Mr. Blomfield seems to imagine, then truly xtfaus is not 
in place. V. 997, he inserts in the text just as " confidenter/' 

fizSuori yap 
otirsp ap%erai vrparov ; 

instead of the reading S/yporai, [see the New Gr. Thes. 726. 
d — 27. b.] out of which others had more easily made * ay per on : 
besides it is yet doubtful whether the reading of Robortellus 
*axporai may not be defended. At v. 944 he stumbles at the 
words vnyiav nXaxa, and saysf, " equidem pene suspicor le- 
gcndum ^pu^iov irKaxa, ut supra 403, aX^v (Spu^iov, vel l^v^tav f 

f The (icnnau Critic lias omitted to state that this note occurs in the Glossary. 
T*. 

Ut 



Mr. Blonifield's Aeschyli Persa. 103 

ut in 881, ftox*« ts nponovTis" Why did lie not leave to the 
authors of these conjectures their wretched property ? Arnald 
had already imagined fipvylav, and Pauw and Heath pv^'iav. 
At verse 1011, he changes the faultless verse, 

# Si»(T7roAejXOv 8^ ysvog to IIep<r£v, 

and gives it thus in the text, 

§6(nroT[j,ov 
8>}T« yevo$ to Ilspo-civ, 

and without any authority. In regard to SucnroTpov, he supports 
himself entirely upon the Scholiast, who says " luo-7roXs^ov ugoc 
xct) xolkotw/Is xot) ctQXiov to yevog rciov Jlegcrwv," and who conse- 
quently must have read ^6o-7ror^ov. He ought not either to have 
departed from the MSS. on account of the very usual metre, 
particularly at the end of the Strophe ; theStrophic verse should 
rather have been made to suit it ; but of this the Editor has 
hardly thought, and indeed he does not seem to possess much 
knowledge of the choric metres : he makes it a rule to avoid 
distinctly declaring himself upon metrical points, but some- 
times he breaks through it, and then almost always shows that 
he had better have been silent. Thus at v. 700 he writes 

viSo^OU fJLSV 7TpOO-$£0~Qui } (Te^O^OU V 

UVTIU \s%<XIj 
<Ts(JSV Ctp^OLlOO 7TSp) TCtpGei, 

with the remark : " Hoc systema in editionibus sic distribuitur, 

<re£oy,tzi jaev 7rgocn§scr0«* 
<rs£o[Aai h' <xyt(u Xs%ou 
o-eQsv aqyoLio) n=p) rapGei 

cujusmodi versus nusquam alias, quod sciam, reperiuntur." He 
has not then yet learnt the Ionici a minori, though in this very 
piece, from verse 65 onwards, he has already handled whole 
Strophes filled with this kind of verse. Moreover, he has for- 
gotten to remark the Antistrophe to these verses from v. 706 on- 
wards. At v. G6'4 also he forgets the Ionics; he divides thus, 

!'A$' W axpov xopvfxGov o- 

fxapiv asigcov, |3acnAs<- . 
* ov TIU- 

qac, (QuXaQQV 7tKpci6o~Kcav f 
and just the same in the Antistrophic. At v. 545, in the Ana- 
paests, he has thrust the Monometer, preceding the Parcemiacus, 

two 



104 A Critique on 

two verses back without any sufficient reason. The Spondaic 
Anapaests, v. 972 and following, he has divided, quite differently, 
he says, from Burney, and indeed into Pseudoparcemiaci, as he 
calls them. How Burney divides them, we know not, but this 
much is certain, Mr. Blomfield divides them falsely, as these 
Anapaests are plainly Antistrophic. Upon the Trochees too we 
have an admirable decision at v. 164, 

TOiVTO. ty Xinovcr ixavw *xgv<rso<rTo\ov§ Zofiovg. 

Mr. Blomfield has edited after some MSS. ^gvasoo-ToKoug. He 
parallels this with Eur. Here. F.415. and remarks, "hanc lectio- 
nem amplexus sum, quia sic versus paullo numerosior evadit." 
Aeschylus and the other tragic poets must then have had little 
feeling of rhythm to have used the less flowing sorts more fre- 
quently than the others. But in the Gl. p. 115, our Editor 
changes his mind upon other principles, and wishes to restore 
^pyo-eoo-ToAjLcou;, because he finds in Choeph. v. 28, Q-roXpo) vrk- 
irAwv, in the Suppl. v. 7 10, <ttoA//,o< ts Kul^ovg, and in the Andro- 
mache of Euripides, v. 148, cttqAjxov te %§wto£ tovSs 7rowAwv tte- 
ttAwv. What can be said of such criticism ? As to the other 
divisions of verse, he seems for the most part to have gone to 
work blindly. The most common rhythmical combinations are 
to him quite strange, of which we have. already given some ex- 
amples ; one finds them torn to pieces, and stumbles here and 
there upon the most singular forms of verse, which sometimes 
too are in opposition to all rhythm. The Antistrophes frequently 
do not correspond with the Strophes, and not a syllable is of- 
fered in explanation. At v. 1009 

xupcruvrsg ovx evTV^caSt 

which are manifestly correct, and to which the S trophies should 
conform, he says " metro succurrerem, legendo, xvgo-ocr ovx svtu- 
X&s" To just as little purpose does one look for an explanation 
of the responses, which are uncommon, and depart from the ge- 
neral rule. The Choruses, particularly towards the end of the 
piece, offer occasion for this judgement, and no less so the 
Strophes, v. 285, with their Antistrophes.. At 1055 he adopts 
the Burneian error, that the verse 

not) o~Tepv clpcurare xuniGou to Muq-m 

* 
is an Antispast. 

Here too we should notice his dependence on Porson, for 
whom he, as well as many other amongst the present English 
philologists, has an unbounded respect. Seldom does he Ten-. 

ture 



Mr. Blomfield's Aeschyli Perste. 105 

ture to dispute Porson's opinions (at v. 5 he indeed does and er- 
roneously); on the contrary, he most faithfully continues and 
even extends his errors. Thus he reverences the Porsonian 
creed, which says the tragic poets never used xai 8s united, and 
in conformity with this four passages are altered only in the Piece 
before us. Just as unconditionally does he obey the Porsonian 
rule that with the Tragedians the augment never could be omit- 
ted in the Trimeter. Thus we read at v. 318, votog zirzvov Ik imcc$, 
instead of vaoj ix [uot$ 7reVov. V. 382, srgo7rovTO xw7r>jv, in place of 
rponovTo x. V. 422, volktQsvt eQgavov, instead of icouqvt eQgotuov. 
v. 464, exvxXovvro, instead of kvxKovvto. V. 496, irKsia-roi 'Qtxvov, 
instead of 7rA£i<rro i Savov. V. 512, skitvov o fas aAA/jAo«nv, instead 
of %'nrTM ft In aAA. V. 773, wotxocrrgo^ouVy instead of olu^Qcrrpd- 
$ovv, — in all which passages he more than once has departed 
from the MSS. and old edd. At v. 326 he follows Porson in 
marking a lacuna after 'ApiO[Aci§do$. V. 507- 

orpaTos 7rsga *Kgu(rraAAo7njya hoi nopov, 
is transposed after Porson into 

xgyo-TaAA07TTJya &a nogov (rrpotTos nsga. 
V. 601 he again follows him in writing, 

aijcta^5sT(ra 8* agovgocv 

A'lOLVTO$ *%eplxKv<TTOl 

vuaog e^ei ru TIeg<Tuv, 

instead of the good old reading algovgoi, which Porson from a sin- 
gular whim held repugnant to the metre. In the note, however, 
Blomfield observes that in case the common reading is correct, 
the passage must be thus punctuated : u\\Lv.yb?i<ra 8* ugoogu Aluv- 
roSf TregixAwrra va<ro j, e%ei t« Z7sp<rav, which also is incorrect. Some- 
times, too, he goes a step further than Porson. V. 476. the trisyl- 
lable «*<7<rco Porson had endured in some places ; but Blomfield 
will allow it only in the Choruses, and therefore reads in Eur. 
Suppl.962, *V, and Iph. Aul. 12, tj 8s <ru o-jwjvrjs sxtoQsv cti<r<ret$ ; 
The passages, cited by Seidler from theTroades v. 157, are re- 
jected as corrupt, without any consideration of this belonging 
to an antistrophic portion. Mr. Blomfield follows ,too Porson's 
orthography, and here also goes beyond his master. Thus for 
example he writes avus*v and eiqysiv. But he has generally 
adopted as his model Porson's mode of treating the ancients, a 
mode, however, which he has but half understood. Hence 
springs, as it seems to us, the Editor's love of conforming every 
thing to rule as much as possible. Even in this he appears to 
imitate Porson, that he seldom gives explanations of passages. 

Bui 



106 A Critique on 

But with Porson it is almost always evident that he could, if he 
would ; however, with our Editor, on the contrary the circum- 
stance of most of his few explanations being false, gives rise to 
no favorable expectation. V . 289 the messenger says 

To this the Chorus replies crTvyval y 'Abavai Auoi$, on which is 
the note, " particula ys, sic posita, valet imo." Mr. Blomfield 
is ignorant of the meaning of the Greek ys, or of the Latin imo. 
Verses 170 and following, he thus writes after an emendation 
of Porson : 

tccvtu fx,oi f/,epifji,v capgoKTTOS ItTTiv ev $gz<riv cWAyj, 

jOtVJTS XgYljAaTCJQV UVOCvhgOV 7TArj0O£ h TlfAY) (TS^SIV, 
U.Y)T U%gYI[Jt,CiTOKn Kot^TTBiV <p«$, 0<T0V aQsVOg TtUgU, 

and translates them, " Propter heec duplex mihi in mente est 
ineffabilis solicitudo, ut nee opum abundantiam sine viris ho- 
nore prosequi contingat, neve nobis, sine opibus relictis, id de- 
coris affulgeat, scilicet quanta vis hominum nobis suppetat." To 
understand this translation it seems one must know something 
more than Greek or Latin. Thus much, however, we can clearly 
see, that Blomfield has not understood the words, oVov vUvos naga, 
(quantascumque vires suppetant.) Atossa in this place con- 
tinues, 

s<m yag 7t\ovto$ y oi^e^Yjg, ay.<fi 8' o^aK^oig (poGot* 

OfApLCt yoig SofJLOQV VOfil^Ot) SeCT7rOTOU 7TCtQ0V(rl<XV. 

upon which in the Glossary we have the following remark, 
" o^aK^osy Oculus, sic dicitur Xerxes. Hanc Schol. interpre- 
tationem, quam amplectitur Stanleius, ineptam vocat Schiitzius, 
qui vertit, Circum oculos meos timor, cujus metaphorae exem- 
plum desidero." Then follow examples of the well-known fact 
that people were called ocpQctXpbg olxov, /3/ou, <TTpctTici$, &c. But 
amongst these examples there is not one, in which the plural 
o<p0aAju,o» is so used, and that is the point in dispute ; we even 
find the singular, where one might perhaps expect the plural, 
in the passage of Pindar, XinzXlac, r %<jolv o$u\p,os 3 and in that 
of Soph, xot) (jlyjv fJ^eyug y otpQuXpog ol 7rargb§ rutpoi. And Schiitz 
is right in saying that this explanation, which has evidently been 
introduced by the opfut in the following verse, is erroneous ; 
for otherwise the poet had not said cW^o'tow irctgovo-luv, but 
merely Sso-ttot^v. That Mr. Blomfield should desire examples 
of the expression, " fear is about my eyes," is nothing wonderful ; 
it is quite in his fashion. But, when it is clear in itself, and it is 

obvious 



Mr. Blomfield's Aeschyli Persa. 107 

obvious too from many similar phrases, that one may use such 
or such an expression, even though no exact examples can be 
found, still he hesitates about it till one or more parallel passages 
are discovered. In the present instance perhaps a passage from 
Eur. Iph. A. 1 J 27- will satisfy him, co's /xo/ ituvrs$ e\g ev fare, 
2vy%v<nv e^ovrss kol\ Tagay^ov ojXjw-arwv. V. 405 he edits 

to fagiov fjisv TTpwTOV evTuxToo$ xepctg 
riyeiTO xoo-pw, dsvrspov £', 6 7r«$ <ttoXo$ 

and the other lection wte% e^wgsi is rejected with the words, u non 
enim clam exibant, sed adversus hostes." (Is then v. 412. 

x.ot) pv)V iraq Yjftcov IIeg<rlfo$ y\w(T^s poQog 

to be understood of a secret occurrence ?) Yet we read in the 
Gloss. "'ETrexp^cogsco, Procedo. Hoccompositum alibi non ofiendi. 
Nescio an rectius legeretur u7rej*gp£co^si." Then they " clam exi- 
bant" after all ! At v. 



at 



t6<to$ yoig scttou irsKotvo$ ctl[iotTO(r<puy^s 
npbs yijji/ nXaraioov jdooplh$ hoyxyg tiVo, 

he explains the word Acop)$ by " Peloponnesiaca," and adds : 
" Miror profecto Aeschylum tantum honoris Peloponnesiacis 
tribuisse ; forsan aliquis suspicetur, hos versus in secundahujus 
fabulas reproesentatione additas fuisse, in Syracusanorum gra- 
tiam." If Aeschylus had no reference in this to the Lacedaemo- 
nians being the first power, we may then understand Aweis 
Xoyxn as used instead of 'EAA>jw?dj Aoy^rj, in opposition to tne 
Persians, as in v. 187 we find 

>) j&ev weVAoKn Ilepcruiols vitni^fxivr}, 
rj §' avre doopixoi<riv. 

tv.558 we are told that *§v<r<pp6M$ me&nscalamitose, tzgre, and 
t v. 8 16 that uia-Tos signifies amotus. V. 590, 5^v is declared 
to be inepta — and many more such errors occur. 

That the Editor does not much trouble himself about the sense 
and construction of passages, may be inferred from his choice 
amongst doubtful readings. Thus at v. 724, the shade of Darius 
asks Atossa of Xerxes, 

nstyg % vctvTY\$ Se niipuv t>jv&' eftwpctvev tu\ol$ ; 
to which Atossa answers, 

afiQoTepw Znrhovv phmov %v luoiv <rrpciT£V[xoiTOiv. 

Here some MSS. have (Trpt^T^KoLjoiVy upon which JBlomfield says, 

" qusenam 



108 A Critique on 

" qusenam ex his vera lectio sit, dijudicent lectores," and adopts 
c-TpocTrjKaroiv. To us it seems beyond doubt that the true read- 
ing is that, which he has rejected. The mention of the leaders 
is not here in place, nor indeed throughout the Piece is there any 
thought of the Persian Chiefs. At v. 799, an evident corruption 
is received into the text. Darius advises the Persians not to 
enter the field against the Greeks again, even though the Per- 
sian army were more numerous, for that earth itself was in al- 
liance with the Greeks. The Chorus asks, 

7ru)$ tout ehefccts, r/vi Tponup fa (rv^ot^si ; 

And Darius answers, 

xTeivovarct tyxw tov$ v7repK6[WQV$ ccyuv. 

Who would here (let the Schol. say what he will) adopt into the 
text the strange and almost laughable *v7rsp7roo\ovs 9 which is in 
some MSS., and call it moreover " germanam lectionem?" 

Mr. Blomfield seems in general ignorant how one ought to 
proceed with various readings ; at least it may be so concluded 
from the way, in which he gives the notice of them ; this is 
not so complete as it should be in a work pretending to be 
critical, nor has he gone upon any certain rule as to what 
should be received or rejected. Sometimes the most manifest 
errors of the press are cited, as for example v. 1 68, uTpetyv instead 
of avTptyr, : v. 176, yYipctXutcL instead of yyiguKsot : v. 177, /3ou- 
KsC^aoa instead of /SouXey^xara : v. 178, i^vos 81; (rather pJ<re 
l)$) instead of ^ <rs $1$: v. 180, x«xe7$ instead of xaAeTj. In 
other places not only do we miss these, as at v. 166, where the 
Wittenberg MS. reads nul poi instead of x«/ jw.?, v. 175, where 
Robortellus reads Koyov instead of koyov, v. 185, where Aldus 
reads w§ Tig instead of co$ t^s, v. 1 91, where the Mosq. MS. 
reads uvtov instead of tuvtov, v. 195, where Aldus and Rob. 
read ctppao-i instead of cipp,u<riv : but more important differ- 
ences, which might really pass for variations, are omitted. 
Thus he has passed over without remark, that at v. 169, o\£ov, ov 
Aupshs ypsv, Aldus has o. ov A, slXsv : that at 182, the Wolfenbuttle 
reads u<p y ou instead of &$' ovnsg : at v. 1 86, the Wittenberg has yu- 
votixe$ sveipove; instead of yvvofix eus/jxove, and Aldus and Turne- 
bus have yvvoux eveipovsg, and that at v. 190, instead of xaAAei r 
apwfjLw, Aldus and Robortellus write xukKei r upcapLcp with the 
iota subscript, and at v. 193, instead of lyca 'Mxouv merely lyw 
ioxovv, and lastly, that in v. 194 in the Wittenberg Codex \ct$wv 
stands in place of /w,a0cov. In-addition to this, the authorities, on 
which any reading depends, are not completely given. At v. 162, 
xai is omitted not only by Aldus and Robortellus, but by the 

Witter 



Mr. Blomfield's Aesckyli Perscz. 109 

Wittenberg MS. At v. 164, the Wolfenbuttle Codex has^pu- 
<reocrT/A6ou£, while not only the edd. recentiores, but Steph. and 
Cant, also have xpvvsoo-ToKpovs. At v. 176 the Wolfenbuttle also 
reads epavTYis ov©«/*w$, and at v. 169, Robortellus also has yvjpci- 
Xuict. Our readers will be able to form an idea of the manner, in 
which the various readings are given in this edition, when we 
call upon them to observe that the above examples are all taken 
from the narrow circle of one- and- twenty verses ! But what 
more particularly deserves censure is, that he often does not state, 
from whence the lection in the text is borrowed, but merely sets 
down in the notes a few variations and the copies, in which they 
are to be found, as if it naturally followed that all the manuscripts 
and editions, which had not the variations, must have the readings 
of the text — thus at v. 800, one is not told whence the received 
lection agoujxev comes, or whether it is simply conjecture. Is it 
not sufficiently known how carelessly the M SS. and old editions 
were consulted by the Editors, and that consequently no certain 
conclusion can be drawn from their silence as to the existence 
or non-existence of a reading ? Sometimes the variations are so 
given, as not to be intelligible. Thus at v. 26 1, av/, aW xaxa 
*vs6xotu, we have in the notes : " aLviu. oivia. Aid. Rob. Turn. Xvnripoi 
Awnjpa vsoxorot Aid. Rob. Barocc. Sed vsotokcc Rob. May one 
not from this note as well conclude that Aid. Rob. and Barocc. 
read Au7r>)§a Awnjpa instead of xa*a, as that, (which is the truth,) 
they inserted after xuxa, Auwijga Ay^a ? Hence our readers 
will see how little useful even in this respect is the Blomfieldian 
edition of Aeschylus. 

In conclusion, one other oversight of the Editor of a different 
kind. In the Gl. p. 101, we read as follows : " Regum Persa- 
rum tov jtteyaAov /3<x<nAe'a audiisse, ut suum Francogalii dicebant 
le grand Monarque, non opus est, ut exemplis ostendam." We 
quote this merely to show with w T hat carelessness Mr. Blomfield 
writes his notes, and because the remark may help to make him 
more careful and modest for the future. For we do not wish 
to reproach him with a sin against grammar, any more than to 
notice the errors of his Latin style; on the contrary, we would 
rather comfort him and place him in this respect by the side of 
the great Salmasius, who once let slip a jxsyaAoj 7roT#jw,oV. 



THE END. 



CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA. 



Page Page 



7. 


dele I. 


49. 


Est autem tam prseclara haec 


8. 


dele " Kai/)Kgioi — " Schneider. Lex. 


54. 


huiusmodi 




* t£iv9ot\ios 




* 2ou\i^oivr» 


9. 


# yivvoYoritgtt 


60. 


Ut fertur, ne 


11. 


* 'Poxxktxos 


61. 


Blomfield-ns 




1826. Cum 


64. 


and p. 135, " if 




dele Cantab. 


71. 


ubique eum 


12. 


'* Mr. Romani 


84. 


Pers. 456. 


23. 


n. velimus virum 


90. 


o-rBvsfiat 


36. 


n. comprehenderet 


92. 


V7T0 rgavrw 


46. 


ficiyaXcoffTi : 


93. 


<7T0\VS. 


47. 


huius 


94. 


aXXov; rot 


48. 


Litterariis 


95. 


n~*ot 



Page 57. "J. F. Schleusner, a Scholar justly celebrated for his admirable 
Lexicon of the New Testament," Blomfield. Without meaning to detract from 
the real merit of this Work, the Editors of tbe New Gr. Thes. would point the at- 
tention of the reader to tbe following observations of Hermann ad Viger. 788. : — 

" Tristissima profecto sors obtigit scriptoribus sacris, quorum si audiendi sunt 
interpretes, nihil inveniri tain absurdum sanceque rationi contrarium poterit, qqod 
non,si ap. hos seriptt. reperiatur, recte, immo eleganter dictum sit. Quare dili- 
genter caveant tirones, ne potent viros spiritu sancto afflatos sprevisse sermonem 
mortalium, sed meminerint potius, illam interpretandi rationem, qua nonnulli 
Theologorum utuntur, nihil esse nisi blasphemiam. Dccumento sunt LexicaN.T., 
exquibus uvo Ad, \\ In, u; Ex significare, denique omnium, quae fieri nequeunt, 
nihil non factum esse discas. Nempe, quoniam rcligio miraculis carere non po- 
test, sublatis miraculis, in eorum locum portenta suffecta sunt." 

P. 78. " Callimachus is fond of using the word vr*kis like Lulum as the sub- 
stance of every thing created." He, who in the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus kept 
a School at Alexandria, may be excused for thinking so, especially when it is recol- 
lected that some philosophers affected to consider the mud, produced by the over- 
flowing of the Nile, as the generating principle of nature. 

P. 88. AixrvouXxm. In the 56th page of this Reply, Mr. Blomfield condemns 
certain Greek verses, written by Liebel, as "faulty both in syntax, prosody, and 
accent." On the subject of accents he should be silent. For the Editors pp. 4. 7. 
35. of this Reply, and in several parts of the New Gr. Thes., (as for instance 
p. 1503. c. aip.ct.ro\oi%oi for alfjcctToXoi^os-) have produced instances of his own blun- 
ders in this respect, and to the catalogue may be added AixTuovXxot for Aix<rvov\- 
xo), a mistake, which has escaped the notice of the Jena-Reviewer. So in Thes. 
HSt. and Schneider's Lex. we have hxrvauXxh, xi^ovXxof, %i$evkx6{ : not lixruouXxos, 
xtgouXxos, %i<pt>i/Xxe$. But Schneider admits the doubtful word *XivevXxoi for XtvevX- 
xoi, used by Ion ap. Athen. 451. So H^^vouXxos, *ro%ouXxos f (and even Mr. Blomf. 
ad Aesch. Pers. 243. has ro%ovXxos 0,1%/**),) and so too we should say *xwovXxcs, 
Athen. 4. 116. e. Nic. Damasc. 240. Cor., (in CoraiiCollectioneFabularum p. 258) 
for which, however, Schneider's Lex. exhibits xvvovXxes. Again, in Pers. 87. Mr. 
Blomfield" presents us with another accentual blunder, hu^ixXvreis ocv-A^do-i, for 
lov^ixkvreis. But for this he may be pardoned, because other Editors of Aeschylus 
have accented the word in the same way. 

P. 92. Aix<p0ti£at. Mr. E. H. Barker, in {he Class. Journ. 23, 90—101., has 
demonstrated the propriety of reading xa.ri<p6u^rai for lit<pSx^ra,i, but pointed out 
Mr. Blomfield's great mistake in saying " Ai*Qhlpiv in sensu Perdendi non usur- 
patur, cum potius significet Corrurnpere." 

P. 88. "Fisherman Aeschylus." No wonder that Mr. Blomfield should labour to 
prove Aeschylus to have beeu a fisherman, when he has himself adopted the lan- 
guage, and followed the trade, of Billingsgate : — " Unumne tantum hamum, quern 
eonsecraret, puss'idebat y^n-iv; Aiotpuvrog ? Non hoc isti putahunt, qui mecum 
rei piscatori* operam navannt." Blomf. ad Callini. H. in D. 10. " Qui sciunt, quae 

leges 



112 ORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA. 

leges sint artis critiea?, etiam laudabunt Seidlerum, quod so prnetervidenda hac 
correction* criticum, quasi facienda piscutorrm prwbere voluerit." Hermann ad 
Elem. Doctr. Metr. 809. See p. 54-5. of (his Reply. By the same proeess of rea- 
soning we might prove Aeschylus to have been a physician; for Mr. Barker, in a 
Review of Dr. Butler's Aeschylus, (Brit. Crit. May 1813. p. 467.) has noticed that 
Aeschylus is " particularly tond of introducing metaphors from the medical art," 
and refers to Choeph. 468. 537. Agam. 17. and to the three Fragments, where 
wiptpiZ, occurs. 

P. 8. "*N«p»Xi«*, quod est vocabulum nihili, pro quo ubique reponendum 
est vt}<pei\ia{, ut *»p«X;«T»jf pro "SupaXiaVitr, quamvis a Scbneidero in Lex. utraque 
forma probata sit." Nov. Thes. Gr. L. 1493. a. On the contrary the Editors are 
now inclined to believe that the genuine form is v*i<p*kiof, ni^aXtirns- Glossae :— 
M N«p«Xi«f, (1. N«<p*Aiar) Sobrius. NntpaXtortit' Sobrietas. Hn<pd.\u$- Sobrius." So 
SappaXiot, SuppaXtarns : xtgSxXiosy xigSaXtstHj : pupiaXios, puft.a.'kurnt* The reader 
will find much matter on this subject in Mr. Barker's Episl.Crit. ad Boissonad. 260., 
appended to his Edition of Arcadius Grammaticus. Moschopul. <r. "2%t}. 172. Nsi- 
<f «• T« i*rot pi fat tt,u), a<p eS vnQxXiog net) wj^aXio;, to «uto. *2**'vTaXia;, Peyron. ad 
Etym. M. 237, 54. Ed. nov. 

P. 4. " We have before remarked one species of inconsistency of which the 
Editors are guilty." Mr. Blomfield should be cautious in speaking of " inconsis- 
tency" in the Editors, lest they should be tempted to point out his own, by con- 
trasting his Speech in the Chapel of Trinity College on the Character of William 
the Third, worthy of a man bearing the Christian names (Charles James) of Mr. 
Fox, with certain passages in his printed Sermons, more worthy of the Tory and 
the High-Churchman. Sic itur ad astra, Virg. Aen. 9, 641. ? 

P. xv. Mr. Blomfield should be the last person in the world to bring forward 
charges of plagiarism. See the Jena- Reviewer of his Edition of Callimachus, 
p. 79. of this Reply. " Kdkuv reposuit Blomfield., dissimulans 7 ut videtur, ducem 
sibi fuisse Schowium," Hermann ad Elem. Doctr. Metr. 688. 

" Of the value set on the Porsoni Adversaria perhaps the most convincing proof 
may be given by stating that, almost as soon as it appeared, the work was re- 
printed in Germany; and such is its favor with the Scholars of that country, that 
one of them has been eager to extract some of the most beautiful emendations of 
Porson, and tp adorn the pages of two Pamphlets with a whole host of borrowed 
discoveries, that shine like new-born stars midst darkness palpable. The feats of 
this second Fiorillo have been partly exposed in two Nos. of this Journal. But the 
whole account of these twin plagiarists is not yet settled. Some items, that have 
been overlooked, shall be given at a future time, and a statement of debtor and 
creditor drawn up between Charles James Blomfield and Richard Parson* On the 
propensity of the English Fiorillo, a hint has been delicately given before ; and 
we had hopes that C J. B. would have spared us the pain of exposure. But warn- 
ing neglected must bring on animadversion. Nor can love of justice permit us to 
exhibit the same tenderness of feelings, as Kidd and Dobree have shown to Fiorillo 
and Meineke; a tenderness, which, we venture to say, bears no proportion to the 
severity of their real sentiments in the condemnation of this conduct. It is true 
that the plagiarisms of C. J. B. are not so numerous or obtrusive as those of Fio- 
rillo and Meineke ; yet the very circumstance of their smaller numbers and 
greater concealment, (though sufficiently marked, so as to leave not the shadow 
of doubt,) does not, in our estimation, diminish the culpability of the party." 
Notice of Dobree* s Porsoni Aristophanica t in Class. Journ. 42, 366. 

" It must always be unpleasant to the candid critic, to detect instances of lite- 
rary dishonesty, and to detract from long-established, and, in many respects, well- 
earned fame. But justice, whose laws should be as strictly observed in cases of 
literary, as of personal property, requires that it should be done." Mr. Blomfield 
in tbe Edinburgh Review of the Cambridge Aeschylus, No. 38. p. 495. 
Enough of Wilkes — to good and honest men, 
His actions speak much stronger than my pen.— Churchill 



Printed by li. and A. Taylor, Shoe- Lane } London. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2006 

PreservationTechnologia 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVA^ 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



i 
lii 

003 037 667 5 



